Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.
952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) Cited 1,294 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding that a significant amount of the alleged infringement and dilution, as well as the resulting injury, occurred in Pennsylvania
Posner v. Essex Insurance
178 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 751 timesHolding that the plaintiff “alleged facts, unrebutted by Salem, that established a prima facie case of jurisdiction over Salem”
Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc.
692 F.2d 727 (11th Cir. 1982) Cited 325 timesHolding that such jurisdictional discovery is not entirely discretionary, but rather, is at least partly mandatory
Nida Corp. v. Nida
118 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (M.D. Fla. 2000) Cited 66 timesHolding that the allegation of trademark infringement against a Florida resident is sufficient to satisfy Florida's long-arm statute
Verizon Trademark Services, LLC v. Producers, Inc.
810 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D. Fla. 2011) Cited 36 timesStating the general rule that a non-resident subsidiary is not automatically subject to jurisdiction in Florida merely because its parent is
Gleneagle Ship Management Co. v. Leondakos
602 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1992) Cited 16 timesNo. 78248. July 16, 1992. Petition from the Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Crockett Farnell, J. Nathaniel G.W. Pieper and David W. McCreadie of Lau, Lane, Pieper Asti, P.A., Tampa, for petitioners. Corey R. Stutin, Hendrik Uiterwyk and John Golding of Trapp, Chastain Uiterwyk, P.A., Tampa, for respondents. HARDING, Justice. We have for review Gleneagle Ship Management Co. v. Leondakos, 581 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), based on express and direct conflict with F. Hoffmann LaRoche Co. v. Felix, 512