21 Cited authorities

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,803 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.
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall
466 U.S. 408 (1984) Cited 9,260 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding 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 4,867 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
Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp.
84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 1,380 times
Holding that dismissal was appropriate where no witnesses or other evidence were located in Vermont, neither party was a resident, and "Florida, the locus of the alleged tort . . . ha far more significant interest[] in resolving the dispute"
Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC
616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 786 times
Holding that a defendant's conduct was purposefully directed toward New York because the defendant offered bags for sale on its website to New York customers and shipped at least one bag to a New York customer
Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A.
318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) Cited 971 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that two sales initiated by the plaintiff cannot establish personal jurisdiction
Sunward Elecs., Inc. v. McDonald
362 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 436 times
Holding that Defendants transacted business in New York where they "maintained a continuous and on-going commercial relationship with Plaintiff, a New York business," and "traveled to New York on two occasions to attend . . . training programs"
Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC
622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010) Cited 202 times
Holding that "[t]here is nothing constitutionally unfair about allowing Illinois" to exercise personal jurisdiction where the defendant had "held itself out to conduct business nationwide and was apparently successful in reaching customers across the country"
Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co.
700 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 50 times 2 Legal Analyses
Explaining that Federal Circuit law governs a preliminary injunction motion targeting patent infringement
Country Home Prods., Inc. v. Schiller-Pfeiffer
350 F. Supp. 2d 561 (D. Vt. 2004) Cited 24 times
Explaining that "the plaintiff is not required to establish that his chosen venue has the most substantial contacts to the dispute; rather, it is sufficient that a substantial part of the events occurred [here], even if a greater part of the events occurred elsewhere"
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 344,767 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

Love Your Brain Foundation, Inc. v. Epilepsy Foundation of Greater Los Angeles

21 Cited authorities

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 “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

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 that dismissal was appropriate where no witnesses or other evidence were located in Vermont, neither party was a resident, and "Florida, the locus of the alleged tort . . . ha far more significant interest[] in resolving the dispute"

Holding that a defendant's conduct was purposefully directed toward New York because the defendant offered bags for sale on its website to New York customers and shipped at least one bag to a New York customer

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

Holding that Defendants transacted business in New York where they "maintained a continuous and on-going commercial relationship with Plaintiff, a New York business," and "traveled to New York on two occasions to attend . . . training programs"

Holding that "[t]here is nothing constitutionally unfair about allowing Illinois" to exercise personal jurisdiction where the defendant had "held itself out to conduct business nationwide and was apparently successful in reaching customers across the country"

Explaining that Federal Circuit law governs a preliminary injunction motion targeting patent infringement

Explaining that "the plaintiff is not required to establish that his chosen venue has the most substantial contacts to the dispute; rather, it is sufficient that a substantial part of the events occurred [here], even if a greater part of the events occurred elsewhere"

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