44 Cited authorities

Walden v. Fiore
571 U.S. 277 (2014) Cited 4,540 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))
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 17,225 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 9,417 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 11,014 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 4,744 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"
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
465 U.S. 770 (1984) Cited 3,103 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that jurisdiction was proper in New Hampshire for publication-based defamation torts, even though the defendant magazine publisher sold most of its magazines elsewhere and that, as a result, "the bulk of the harm done to [the plaintiff] occurred outside New Hampshire"
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 23,027 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) )
Ame. Nat. Ins. Co. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Co.
642 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011) Cited 758 times
Holding that § 1821(d)(D) did not bar judicial review of unexhausted claim against Chase where plaintiffs alleged that Chase improperly "pressured the federal government to seize" WMB and then profited by purchasing WMB's assets at a low price
Posner v. Essex Insurance
178 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 782 times
Holding that the plaintiff “alleged facts, unrebutted by Salem, that established a prima facie case of jurisdiction over Salem”
Revell v. Lidov
317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 575 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding sales of thirty-five subscriptions in two years insufficient for general jurisdiction
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 358,269 times 949 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 72,489 times 129 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 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 29,082 times 191 Legal Analyses
Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR
Section 48.193 - Acts subjecting person to jurisdiction of courts of state
Fla. Stat. § 48.193 Cited 1,650 times 15 Legal Analyses
Referencing Fla. Stat. § 685.102

Montgomery v. Risen et al

44 Cited authorities

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 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 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 jurisdiction was proper in New Hampshire for publication-based defamation torts, even though the defendant magazine publisher sold most of its magazines elsewhere and that, as a result, "the bulk of the harm done to [the plaintiff] occurred outside New Hampshire"

Holding that § 1821(d)(D) did not bar judicial review of unexhausted claim against Chase where plaintiffs alleged that Chase improperly "pressured the federal government to seize" WMB and then profited by purchasing WMB's assets at a low price

Holding that the plaintiff “alleged facts, unrebutted by Salem, that established a prima facie case of jurisdiction over Salem”

Holding sales of thirty-five subscriptions in two years insufficient for general jurisdiction

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

Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

Referencing Fla. Stat. § 685.102