§Why CasetextPricing

Gallow et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

25 Cited authorities

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,591 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

  2. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,181 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

  3. Walden v. Fiore

    571 U.S. 277 (2014)   Cited 4,283 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”

  4. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 16,804 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.

  5. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 10,816 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  6. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,868 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

  7. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,554 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )

  8. Hanson v. Denckla

    357 U.S. 235 (1958)   Cited 7,863 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant trustee was inappropriate when defendant's only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiff-settlor's unilateral activity of moving to Florida

  9. United Tech. Corp. v. Mazer

    556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 873 times
    Holding that " court without personal jurisdiction is powerless to take further action"

  10. Sonera Holding B.V. v. Çukurova Holding A.S.

    750 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2014)   Cited 244 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a corporation's contacts with New York did not “come close to making it ‘at home' there” even though the corporation solicited business from two New York-based funds, among other contacts that the corporation had with New York

  11. Section 1407 - Multidistrict litigation

    28 U.S.C. § 1407   Cited 7,050 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts

  12. Section 768.16 - Wrongful Death Act

    Fla. Stat. § 768.16   Cited 91 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Sections 768.16 - 768.26 may be cited as the "Florida Wrongful Death Act." Fla. Stat. § 768.16 s. 1, ch. 72-35; s.105, ch. 2003-1.

  13. Rule 52.05 - Who May Join as Plaintiff and Defendant-Protective Orders, When

    Mo. R. Civ. P. 52.05   Cited 3 times

    (a) Permissive Joinder. All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all of them will arise in the action. All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect