30 Cited authorities

Doe v. Unocal Corp.
248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 949 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "court may consider evidence" on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)
Stuart v. Spademan
772 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1985) Cited 1,003 times
Holding that the nonresident defendant did not intend to avail himself of the laws of the forum when he contracted with several Texas residents, sent letters to Texas, shipped products to Texas, included a Texas law provision in the contract, and marketed his product in Texas
Wells Fargo Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co.
556 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1977) Cited 644 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that questions of personal jurisdiction “must be decided on a case-by-case basis”
LFC Marketing Group, Inc. v. Loomis
116 Nev. 896 (Nev. 2000) Cited 124 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "carefully designed business arrangements . . . contributed to the . . . inability to collect the[] judgment"
First American Corp. v. Price Waterhouse LLP
154 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 86 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that personal service of a subpoena on a general partner established personal jurisdiction over a partnership and allowed a court to compel it to comply with a subpoena
Arandell Corp. v. Xcel Energy, Inc.
605 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Nev. 2009) Cited 54 times
MDL No. 1566., Nos. 2:03-CV-01431-PMP-PAL, 2:07-CV-01019-PMP-PAL. February 26, 2009 Joshua D. Snyder, Michael J. Boni, Kate Reznick, Theresa J. Henson, Boni Zack LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Kathleen S. Rogers, Glancy Binkow Goldberg LLP, Michael P. Lehmann, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld Toll P.L.L.C., San Francisco, CA, Bruce Alverson, Nathan Reinmiller, Alverson Taylor Mortensen Sanders, Von S. Heinz, Lewis Roca, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Marc H. Edelson, Jerold B. Hoffman, Hoffman Edelson, LLC, Doylestown, PA
Lorenz v. Beltio, Ltd.
114 Nev. 795 (Nev. 1998) Cited 66 times
Concluding that the “corporate veil must be pierced” because all three elements of the alter ego doctrine were established as a matter of law, and reversing the trial court in relevant part
Shapiro, Lifschitz Schram, P.C. v. Hazard
24 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 1998) Cited 65 times
Finding this factor to merit little weight where "[d]efendants state that the potential witnesses residing in California are beyond the subpoena power of this Court, but they do not suggest that these witnesses will refuse to appear if the trial is held in the District of Columbia"
Lipshie v. Tracy Investment Co.
93 Nev. 370 (Nev. 1977) Cited 113 times
Holding that a non-party to a contract must demonstrate that a contract clearly intended to benefit him and that his reliance on the contract was foreseeable in order to establish third-party beneficiary status
Polaris Industrial Corp. v. Kaplan
103 Nev. 598 (Nev. 1987) Cited 75 times
Holding "[t]he essence of the alter ego doctrine is to do justice"
Rule 69 - Execution
Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 Cited 4,088 times 6 Legal Analyses
Adopting state law for procedures to execute judgments and obtain relevant discovery
Rule 3 - Commencing an Action
Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 Cited 3,063 times 5 Legal Analyses
Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"

NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina

30 Cited authorities

Holding "court may consider evidence" on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)

Holding that the nonresident defendant did not intend to avail himself of the laws of the forum when he contracted with several Texas residents, sent letters to Texas, shipped products to Texas, included a Texas law provision in the contract, and marketed his product in Texas

Holding that questions of personal jurisdiction “must be decided on a case-by-case basis”

Holding that "carefully designed business arrangements . . . contributed to the . . . inability to collect the[] judgment"

Holding that personal service of a subpoena on a general partner established personal jurisdiction over a partnership and allowed a court to compel it to comply with a subpoena

Concluding that the “corporate veil must be pierced” because all three elements of the alter ego doctrine were established as a matter of law, and reversing the trial court in relevant part

Finding this factor to merit little weight where "[d]efendants state that the potential witnesses residing in California are beyond the subpoena power of this Court, but they do not suggest that these witnesses will refuse to appear if the trial is held in the District of Columbia"

Holding that a non-party to a contract must demonstrate that a contract clearly intended to benefit him and that his reliance on the contract was foreseeable in order to establish third-party beneficiary status

Holding "[t]he essence of the alter ego doctrine is to do justice"

Adopting state law for procedures to execute judgments and obtain relevant discovery

Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"