Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

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

Holding 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

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

Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

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) )

Shaffer v. Heitner

Holding that, once a judgment is validly rendered against a debtor, the judgment creditor may sue to satisfy the debt with property in a state that lacks personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor

Hanson v. Denckla

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

Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.

Holding that while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 establishes procedural requirements concerning the "adequacy of the shareholder representative's pleadings," state law governs the substance of the demand requirement

D.H. v. Gottdiener

Holding that Rule 55, governing default judgment, "does not operate well in the context of a motion to confirm or vacate an arbitration award" because such motions are "motions in an ongoing proceeding rather than a complaint initiating a plenary action"

Aronson v. Lewis

Holding that plaintiff must demonstrate that directors were beholden to controlling person

Rales v. Blasband

Holding that three of eight directors were interested parties and that the amended complaint raised a reasonable doubt as to the independence of two remaining directors, making demand futile

Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Section R3211 - Motion to dismiss

Granting dismissal where a defense is based upon documentary evidence

Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries

Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"

Rule 23.1 - Derivative Actions

Requiring only that the plaintiff allege demand futility "with particularity"

Section 301 - Jurisdiction over persons, property or status

Codifying caselaw that incorporates "doing business" standard

Section 141 - Board of directors; powers; number, qualifications, terms and quorum; committees; classes of directors; nonstock corporations; reliance upon books; action without meeting; removal

Permitting action without a meeting if the board consents

Section 102 - Contents of certificate of incorporation

Authorizing such waivers

Section 78.138 - Directors and officers: Fiduciary duties; exercise of powers; presumptions and considerations; liability to corporation, stockholders and creditors

Codifying the business judgment rule

Section 78.7502 - Discretionary indemnification of directors, officers, employees and agents: General provisions

Rule 23.1 - Derivative Actions by Shareholders