17 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,954 times 238 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown
564 U.S. 915 (2011) Cited 5,480 times 88 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Walden v. Fiore
571 U.S. 277 (2014) Cited 4,528 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))
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
Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co.
342 U.S. 437 (1952) Cited 1,837 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
Bank Brussels v. Fiddler Gonzalez Rodriguez
171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 792 times
Holding that the plaintiff must establish all five elements in order to assert jurisdiction pursuant to section 3O2
Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 517 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding "the policy expressed in the TVPA favoring adjudication of claims of violations of international prohibitions on torture" weighed against dismissing the action on forum non conveniens grounds
Bensusan Restaurant Corporation v. King
126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 518 times
Holding that, even if the plaintiff suffered injury in New York, "that does not establish a tortious act in the state of New York within the meaning of § 302"
Sonera Holding B.V. v. Çukurova Holding A.S.
750 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2014) Cited 255 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a corporation's contacts with New York did not “come close to making it ‘at home' there” even though the corporation solicited business from two New York-based funds, among other contacts that the corporation had with New York
Troma Entm't, Inc. v. Centennial Pictures Inc.
729 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2013) Cited 132 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that “statutory damages as a result of defendants' willful infringement” is “far too speculative to support a finding that [the plaintiff] suffered injury in New York”
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 357,835 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
Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302 Cited 4,333 times 6 Legal Analyses
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"
Section 301 - Jurisdiction over persons, property or status
N.Y. CPLR 301 Cited 1,590 times
Codifying caselaw that incorporates "doing business" standard

In re: North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litigation

17 Cited authorities

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

Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

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 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 the plaintiff must establish all five elements in order to assert jurisdiction pursuant to section 3O2

Holding "the policy expressed in the TVPA favoring adjudication of claims of violations of international prohibitions on torture" weighed against dismissing the action on forum non conveniens grounds

Holding that, even if the plaintiff suffered injury in New York, "that does not establish a tortious act in the state of New York within the meaning of § 302"

Holding that a corporation's contacts with New York did not “come close to making it ‘at home' there” even though the corporation solicited business from two New York-based funds, among other contacts that the corporation had with New York

Holding that “statutory damages as a result of defendants' willful infringement” is “far too speculative to support a finding that [the plaintiff] suffered injury in New York”

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

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"

Codifying caselaw that incorporates "doing business" standard