24 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,946 times 238 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
Walden v. Fiore
571 U.S. 277 (2014) Cited 4,518 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 17,188 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.
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court
480 U.S. 102 (1987) Cited 4,947 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
Calder v. Jones
465 U.S. 783 (1984) Cited 4,732 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
564 U.S. 873 (2011) Cited 1,378 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding that a metal-shearing machine manufacturer based in England that engaged an independent distributor to sell its machines across the U.S. was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey where the plaintiff was injured while using one of the company's machines
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,988 times 110 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) )
Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co.
342 U.S. 437 (1952) Cited 1,835 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
Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros
472 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2006) Cited 668 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that jurisdictional discovery decisions "will not be disturbed" absent a "clear abuse"
Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power
253 F.3d 865 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 648 times
Holding that a district court need not "credit conclusory allegations, even if uncontroverted"
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 357,280 times 950 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 72,180 times 128 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
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 23,013 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Harding v. Alaska Fuel Distributors, Inc. et al

24 Cited authorities

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

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, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"

Holding that a metal-shearing machine manufacturer based in England that engaged an independent distributor to sell its machines across the U.S. was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey where the plaintiff was injured while using one of the company's machines

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 jurisdictional discovery decisions "will not be disturbed" absent a "clear abuse"

Holding that a district court need not "credit conclusory allegations, even if uncontroverted"

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

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system