Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 260,142 times 281 Legal AnalysesHolding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 17,086 times 46 Legal AnalysesHolding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall
466 U.S. 408 (1984) Cited 9,375 times 26 Legal AnalysesHolding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 10,957 times 32 Legal AnalysesHolding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma
Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff Co.
484 U.S. 97 (1987) Cited 1,931 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that due process concerns related to personal jurisdiction are alleviated where the defendant has consented to service
Illinois v. Fisher
540 U.S. 544 (2004) Cited 490 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that the mere fact that destroyed evidence was at the time sought in a pending discovery request did not “eliminate the necessity of showing bad faith on the part of police”
Submersible Sys. v. Perforadora Central
249 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 230 timesHolding that sending employees every year to a conference in Houston, together with construction of a drilling rig in Mississippi, maintaining a bank account in Houston, and purchasing parts and vessels in the United States insufficient to establish general jurisdiction over foreign entity under Rule 4(k)
BHP de Venezula, C.A. v. Casteig
994 S.W.2d 321 (Tex. App. 1999) Cited 7 timesNo. 13-98-624-CV May 27, 1999 Appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, Mike Westergren, J. Keith B. Sieczkowski, for appellant. Francis I. Spagnoletti, Spagnoletti Associates, James T. Liston, for appellee. Before Justices DORSEY, HINOJOSA, and RODRIGUEZ. OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ, Justice. We overrule appellee's motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion dated May 6, 1999, and substitute the following opinion in its place. Appellee Eugene Casteig brought
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 354,229 times 943 Legal AnalysesGranting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,753 times 16 Legal AnalysesAllowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Section 2721 - Prohibition on release and use of certain personal information from State motor vehicle records
18 U.S.C. § 2721 Cited 618 times 23 Legal AnalysesExempting any government agency, including law enforcement, "in carrying out its functions"