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.

Cooter Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.

Holding that it is necessarily an abuse of discretion to apply the wrong legal standard

J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro

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

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

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) )

Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith

Holding that when a court does not hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion, a plaintiff's allegations will be treated as if they were true

Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A.

Holding that two sales initiated by the plaintiff cannot establish personal jurisdiction

Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine

Holding that the plaintiffs ought to have the opportunity to conduct personal discovery, where the plaintiffs' claim was not frivolous and they were "faced with the difficult task of trying to establish personal jurisdiction over a corporation"

Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, National Ass'n v. Farino

Holding that plaintiff's right to conduct jurisdictional discovery should be sustained when factual allegations suggest the possible existence of requisite contacts between the defendant and the forum state with "reasonable particularity"

Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt

Holding that a "patentee [does] not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum solely by informing a party who happens to be located there of suspected infringement," as "[grounding personal jurisdiction on such contacts alone would not comport with principles of fairness."

Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Rule 4 - Summons

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 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

Section 1391 - Venue generally

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Section 271 - Infringement of patent

Holding that testing is a "use"

Section 1400 - Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs

Identifying proper venue for copyright and patent suits

Rule 4:4 - Process