29 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 273,590 times 368 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 10,957 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
Calder v. Jones
465 U.S. 783 (1984) Cited 4,702 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,892 times 110 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) )
Nemet Chevrolet v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.
591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) Cited 3,149 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a website did not contribute to alleged illegality
O'Connor v. Sandy Lane
496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 1,188 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a vacation company purposefully contacted Pennsylvania by mailing brochures and calling Pennsylvania residents
Marten v. Godwin
499 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 935 times
Holding that court lacked special jurisdiction over the University of Kansas based on its expulsion of a Pennsylvania resident from its internet-based education program, allegedly in retaliation for plaintiff's exercise of his freedom of expression under the First Amendment
IMO Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert AG
155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998) Cited 1,047 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that minimum contacts do not exist in an intentional tort case unless the defendant " expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum"; the mere fact that the harm caused by the defendant was primarily felt in the forum because the plaintiff resided there is not enough
Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, National Ass'n v. Farino
960 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1992) Cited 1,141 times
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"
Remick v. Manfredy
238 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 730 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding distribution of defamatory letter to "the boxing community" did not support personal jurisdiction where forum state lacked "unique relationship with the boxing industry, as distinguished from the relationship in Calder between California and the motion picture industry"
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 354,229 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 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
Section 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
47 U.S.C. § 230 Cited 1,055 times 168 Legal Analyses
Preempting state law
Section 5322 - Bases of personal jurisdiction over persons outside this Commonwealth
42 Pa. C.S. § 5322 Cited 882 times 2 Legal Analyses
Authorizing the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution

Marfione et al v. Kai U.S.A ., Ltd et al

29 Cited authorities

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

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

Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"

Holding that a website did not contribute to alleged illegality

Holding a vacation company purposefully contacted Pennsylvania by mailing brochures and calling Pennsylvania residents

Holding that court lacked special jurisdiction over the University of Kansas based on its expulsion of a Pennsylvania resident from its internet-based education program, allegedly in retaliation for plaintiff's exercise of his freedom of expression under the First Amendment

Holding that minimum contacts do not exist in an intentional tort case unless the defendant " expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum"; the mere fact that the harm caused by the defendant was primarily felt in the forum because the plaintiff resided there is not enough

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"

Holding distribution of defamatory letter to "the boxing community" did not support personal jurisdiction where forum state lacked "unique relationship with the boxing industry, as distinguished from the relationship in Calder between California and the motion picture industry"

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

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

Preempting state law

Authorizing the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution