§Why CasetextPricing

Martinez et al v. Viad Corp. et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction WITH SUPPORTING MEMO

18 Cited authorities

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,670 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

  2. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,251 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

  3. Walden v. Fiore

    571 U.S. 277 (2014)   Cited 4,335 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”

  4. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 16,889 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.

  5. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

    466 U.S. 408 (1984)   Cited 9,292 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

  6. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 10,866 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

  7. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,884 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

  8. J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro

    564 U.S. 873 (2011)   Cited 1,346 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

  9. Rush v. Savchuk

    444 U.S. 320 (1980)   Cited 809 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party was not subject to state's jurisdiction in a personal injury action simply because his insurer was based there, and stating that the requirement of minimum contacts "must be met as to each defendant . . ."

  10. Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A.

    290 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2002)   Cited 550 times
    Finding purposeful availment in part because of an out-of-forum law firm's "properly attributed" "ongoing relationship" with an in-forum lawyer who was allegedly "central" to the firm's "titanic recoveries" in a complex litigation

  11. Section 9-5-33 - Jurisdiction over foreign corporations and over nonresident individuals, partnerships, or associations

    R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-5-33   Cited 100 times

    (a) Every foreign corporation, every individual not a resident of this state or his or her executor or administrator, and every partnership or association, composed of any person or persons not such residents, that shall have the necessary minimum contacts with the state of Rhode Island, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the state of Rhode Island, and the courts of this state shall hold such foreign corporations and such nonresident individuals or their executors or administrators, and such