40 Cited authorities

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 17,086 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.
Dudnikov v. Chalk
514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) Cited 978 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Colorado court had personal jurisdiction over a defendant despite "the lack of defendants’ physical presence in Colorado" because they acted "with the ultimate purpose of cancelling plaintiffs’ auction in Colorado"
Bancroft Masters, Inc., v. Augusta National
223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,233 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding 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
Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp.
84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 1,407 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"
Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon
310 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 1,044 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a dismissal, with prejudice, arising out of a settlement agreement, operates as a final judgment for res judicata purposes"
RAR v. TURNER DIESEL
107 F.3d 1272 (7th Cir. 1997) Cited 776 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact that defendant would not have been performing the task that subjected him to liability but for his previous contacts with plaintiff in Illinois was a loose causal connection that did not provide the basis for personal jurisdiction
Cutco Industries v. Naughton
806 F.2d 361 (2d Cir. 1986) Cited 882 times
Holding that conduct of a partner in a partnership can be the basis for jurisdiction because New York law states that every partner is an agent of the partnership
PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander
103 F.3d 1105 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 484 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "that Friedlander lacks standing to sue PDK under § 43 of the Lanham Act" because "Friedlander's dogged insistence that PDK's products are sold without proper FDA approval suggests . . . that Friedlander's true goal is to privately enforce alleged violations of the FDCA."
Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9961 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 161 times
Finding that a demand letter sent by English solicitors to the plaintiff in New York to enforce an English judgment was not sufficient to "invoke the privileges and protections of our State's laws"
Parke-Bernet Galleries v. Franklyn
26 N.Y.2d 13 (N.Y. 1970) Cited 464 times
Holding that jurisdiction could be exercised over out-of-state defendant who participated in auction bidding by telephone
Rule 19 - Required Joinder of Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 Cited 9,672 times 55 Legal Analyses
Holding a person must be joined if disposing the action in the person's absence may leave an existing party subject to a "substantial" risk of incurring inconsistent obligations
Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302 Cited 4,286 times 5 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 304 - Duration of copyright: Subsisting copyrights
17 U.S.C. § 304 Cited 187 times 12 Legal Analyses
Extending the copyright term of works still under copyright in 1998 to 95 years
Section 201.10 - Notices of termination of transfers and licenses
37 C.F.R. § 201.10 Cited 22 times 3 Legal Analyses
Requiring service on each grantee or successor whose rights are being terminated

Marvel Worldwide, Inc. et al v. Kirby et al

40 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 a Colorado court had personal jurisdiction over a defendant despite "the lack of defendants’ physical presence in Colorado" because they acted "with the ultimate purpose of cancelling plaintiffs’ auction in Colorado"

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 dismissal, with prejudice, arising out of a settlement agreement, operates as a final judgment for res judicata purposes"

Holding that the fact that defendant would not have been performing the task that subjected him to liability but for his previous contacts with plaintiff in Illinois was a loose causal connection that did not provide the basis for personal jurisdiction

Holding that conduct of a partner in a partnership can be the basis for jurisdiction because New York law states that every partner is an agent of the partnership

Holding "that Friedlander lacks standing to sue PDK under § 43 of the Lanham Act" because "Friedlander's dogged insistence that PDK's products are sold without proper FDA approval suggests . . . that Friedlander's true goal is to privately enforce alleged violations of the FDCA."

Finding that a demand letter sent by English solicitors to the plaintiff in New York to enforce an English judgment was not sufficient to "invoke the privileges and protections of our State's laws"

Holding that jurisdiction could be exercised over out-of-state defendant who participated in auction bidding by telephone

Holding a person must be joined if disposing the action in the person's absence may leave an existing party subject to a "substantial" risk of incurring inconsistent obligations

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"

Extending the copyright term of works still under copyright in 1998 to 95 years

Requiring service on each grantee or successor whose rights are being terminated