Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,922 times 46 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
466 U.S. 408 (1984) Cited 9,307 times 26 Legal AnalysesHolding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court
480 U.S. 102 (1987) Cited 4,889 times 40 Legal AnalysesHolding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,705 times 109 Legal AnalysesHolding 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) )
Hanson v. Denckla
357 U.S. 235 (1958) Cited 7,902 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 2,701 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"
Bancroft Masters, Inc., v. Augusta National
223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,230 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that California had personal jurisdiction over declaratory judgment defendant because of defendant's challenge to plaintiff's registration for its domain name, which challenge was filed with an agency located in Virginia but affected the plaintiff's ability to use the domain name in California
Thompson v. Illinois Dept. of Prof. Regulation
300 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2002) Cited 1,016 timesHolding district court did not abuse its discretion when plaintiff failed to cure deficiencies that persisted from the first amended complaint after given multiple chances to amend after motions to dismiss were filed
Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen
141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,152 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that personal jurisdiction existed where “[t]he brunt of the harm ... was felt in California,” and the defendant “knew Panavision would likely suffer harm there because, although at all relevant times Panavision was a Delaware limited partnership, its principal place of business was in California”
Doe v. Unocal Corp.
248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 938 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding "court may consider evidence" on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)
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 348,617 times 930 Legal AnalysesGranting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 410.10 - Generally
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 Cited 1,340 times 1 Legal AnalysesAllowing for jurisdiction over non-residents coextensive with due process requirements
Section 1031 - Exchange of real property held for productive use or investment
26 U.S.C. § 1031 Cited 731 times 78 Legal AnalysesProviding for the nonrecognition of gain from exchanges of investment property for other investment property of like kind