21 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,861 times 237 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown
564 U.S. 915 (2011) Cited 5,401 times 87 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Walden v. Fiore
571 U.S. 277 (2014) Cited 4,467 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that, for specific jurisdiction, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State" (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985))
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 17,086 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding 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 Analyses
Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co.
342 U.S. 437 (1952) Cited 1,831 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding Ohio courts could exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation due to the extent and nature of the temporary operations in the state, finding such business activity was continuous and systematic
Int'l Energy Ventures Mgmt., L.L.C. v. United Energy Grp., Ltd.
818 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2016) Cited 636 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the federal pleading standard applies when determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim against a non-diverse defendant
Johnston v. Multidata
523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 623 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant did not "ha[ve] a general business presence in [Texas] based on the residence of two employees . . . [who] work[ed] from home and report[ed] to supervisors located in Toronto, Canada" because "[w]hile their presence [was] certainly a regular contact with Texas, it [was] not substantial enough to create a general business presence in Texas"
Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter
768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014) Cited 407 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that communications and wire transfers were insufficient to confer jurisdiction where the communications and transfers were initiated by the resident plaintiff
Stuart v. Spademan
772 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1985) Cited 1,001 times
Holding that the nonresident defendant did not intend to avail himself of the laws of the forum when he contracted with several Texas residents, sent letters to Texas, shipped products to Texas, included a Texas law provision in the contract, and marketed his product in Texas
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 Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Dallas Texans Soccer Club et al v. Major League Soccer Players Union et al

21 Cited authorities

Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

Holding that, for specific jurisdiction, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State" (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985))

Holding 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.

Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

Holding Ohio courts could exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation due to the extent and nature of the temporary operations in the state, finding such business activity was continuous and systematic

Holding that the federal pleading standard applies when determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim against a non-diverse defendant

Holding that communications and wire transfers were insufficient to confer jurisdiction where the communications and transfers were initiated by the resident plaintiff

Holding that the nonresident defendant did not intend to avail himself of the laws of the forum when he contracted with several Texas residents, sent letters to Texas, shipped products to Texas, included a Texas law provision in the contract, and marketed his product in Texas

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time