80 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. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.

    526 U.S. 574 (1999)   Cited 4,122 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because "[t]hey keep the federal courts within the bounds the Constitution and Congress have prescribed," questions concerning subject matter jurisdiction "must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the highest level"
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro

    564 U.S. 873 (2011)   Cited 1,338 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
  9. 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) )
  10. 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
  11. 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 344,855 times   920 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 111,020 times   572 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"
  13. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,127 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
  14. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 68,636 times   121 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
  15. Section 157 - Procedures

    28 U.S.C. § 157   Cited 51,363 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Determining the validity, extent, or priority of liens
  16. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 49,894 times   149 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”
  17. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,301 times   183 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR
  18. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 27,708 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
  19. Section 158 - Appeals

    28 U.S.C. § 158   Cited 18,100 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts appellate jurisdiction over "final judgments, orders, and decrees" of bankruptcy courts
  20. 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
  21. 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