21 Cited authorities

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown
564 U.S. 915 (2011) Cited 5,480 times 88 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 17,212 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.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 11,008 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
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court
480 U.S. 102 (1987) Cited 4,948 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
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 23,009 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) )
McHenry v. Renne
84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 4,385 times
Holding that a pleading that is "argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy," and does not state "who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery" must be dismissed
Johnston v. Multidata
523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 629 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant did not "ha[ve] a general business presence in [Texas] based on the residence of two employees . . . [who] work[ed] from home and report[ed] to supervisors located in Toronto, Canada" because "[w]hile their presence [was] certainly a regular contact with Texas, it [was] not substantial enough to create a general business presence in Texas"
Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB
205 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2000) Cited 712 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that general jurisdiction did not exist where the defendant occasionally sold products to entities in Texas that used the defendant's products for projects in Texas and the defendant's employees made field visits to Texas between December 1992 and December 1993
Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power
253 F.3d 865 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 651 times
Holding that a district court need not "credit conclusory allegations, even if uncontroverted"
Pervasive Software, Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co.
688 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2012) Cited 434 times
Finding no personal jurisdiction where defendant "solicits no business . . . through advertising targeted specifically to Texas"
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 357,835 times 950 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 162,084 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 72,380 times 128 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
Rule 21 - Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 Cited 7,723 times 14 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants

Opperman et al v. Path, Inc. et al

21 Cited authorities

Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

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 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 that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

Holding that a pleading that is "argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy," and does not state "who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery" must be dismissed

Holding that general jurisdiction did not exist where the defendant occasionally sold products to entities in Texas that used the defendant's products for projects in Texas and the defendant's employees made field visits to Texas between December 1992 and December 1993

Holding that a district court need not "credit conclusory allegations, even if uncontroverted"

Finding no personal jurisdiction where defendant "solicits no business . . . through advertising targeted specifically to Texas"

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

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

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 district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants