§Why CasetextPricing

Perceptron, Incorporated v. Silicon Video, Incorporated et al

RESPONSE to 2 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or For Transfer of Venue Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404

23 Cited authorities

  1. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,554 times   109 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) )

  2. Compuserve, Incorporated v. Patterson

    89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,101 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's contacts with Ohio were sufficient to support the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant consciously reached out from Texas to Ohio to subscribe to CompuServe and sold his software over CompuServe's Ohio-based system

  3. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Tryg International Insurance

    91 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 1996)   Cited 352 times
    Holding that the defendant company's action in sending a representative to Ohio to negotiate a resolution of a prior dispute did not confer personal jurisdiction

  4. Turner v. Bituminous Casualty Co.

    397 Mich. 406 (Mich. 1976)   Cited 252 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting continuity of enterprise exception

  5. Audi Ag & Volkswagon of America, Inc. v. D'amato

    341 F. Supp. 2d 734 (E.D. Mich. 2004)   Cited 108 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the website supported personal jurisdiction in Michigan, in part, because "the goods sold on the website allegedly infringed upon Plaintiffs' trademarks who principally reside in Michigan."

  6. Audi AG & Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Izumi

    204 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (E.D. Mich. 2002)   Cited 97 times
    Finding purposeful availment where "the web site allows customers to purchase items and, at a minimum, attempts to solicit business from Michigan residents"

  7. Sifers v. Horen

    385 Mich. 195 (Mich. 1971)   Cited 199 times
    Holding that an Illinois professional corporation had "transacted business" in Michigan through its mail and telephone contacts with Michigan residents

  8. Green v. Wilson

    455 Mich. 342 (Mich. 1997)   Cited 88 times
    Finding no jurisdiction where neither the act nor the consequence occurred in Michigan

  9. Jeffrey v. Rapid American Corp.

    448 Mich. 178 (Mich. 1995)   Cited 72 times
    Holding “the jurisdictional contacts of a predecessor can be imputed to a successor when the successor expressly assumes all liabilities of the predecessor”

  10. Arnold Graphics Indus v. Independent Agent Ctr.

    775 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1985)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that an asset-purchasing company's statements to the SEC established the existence of a de facto merger as a matter of law, even though the SEC statements were later contradicted by an affidavit from the company's president

  11. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,301 times   183 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

  12. Section 600.715 - Corporations; limited personal jurisdiction

    Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.715   Cited 303 times

    The existence of any of the following relationships between a corporation or its agent and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of record of this state to exercise limited personal jurisdiction over such corporation and to enable such courts to render personal judgments against such corporation arising out of the act or acts which create any of the following relationships: (1) The transaction of any business within the state. (2) The doing or causing