11 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,588 times 236 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown
564 U.S. 915 (2011) Cited 5,179 times 86 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Walden v. Fiore
571 U.S. 277 (2014) Cited 4,281 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,550 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) )
Purdue Research v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A
338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 1,155 times
Holding that stream-of-commerce theory "is relevant only to the exercise of specific jurisdiction; it provides no basis for exercising general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant"
Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co.
342 U.S. 437 (1952) Cited 1,816 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding Ohio courts could exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation due to the extent and nature of the temporary operations in the state, finding such business activity was continuous and systematic
Hyatt International Corp. v. Coco
302 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2002) Cited 806 times
Holding that defendant could not parse long course of business dealings into "two purportedly unrelated events" in determining that his initial communications and visit with company in Illinois were related to claim that he was owed broker fee for hotel development in Italy
Kipp v. Ski Enter. Corp. of Wis.
783 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2015) Cited 219 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact that defendant company does solicit business in Illinois was not enough to establish personal jurisdiction, and noting that "no case has ever held that solicitation alone is sufficient for general jurisdiction"
Kostal v. Pinkus Dermatopathology Lab
357 Ill. App. 3d 381 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) Cited 83 times
Noting that the court had not located any post-Rollins cases finding that federal due process requirements had been met where Illinois due process requirements were not
Keller v. Henderson
359 Ill. App. 3d 605 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) Cited 55 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Keller, the Illinois Appellate Court held that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the defendant sought and hired an Illinois resident to fly an airplane that the plaintiff alleged was unsafe, resulting in the Illinois resident's death.

Perez et al v. Air & Liquid System Corporation et al

11 Cited authorities

Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

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

Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”

Holding that stream-of-commerce theory "is relevant only to the exercise of specific jurisdiction; it provides no basis for exercising general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant"

Holding Ohio courts could exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation due to the extent and nature of the temporary operations in the state, finding such business activity was continuous and systematic

Holding that defendant could not parse long course of business dealings into "two purportedly unrelated events" in determining that his initial communications and visit with company in Illinois were related to claim that he was owed broker fee for hotel development in Italy

Holding that the fact that defendant company does solicit business in Illinois was not enough to establish personal jurisdiction, and noting that "no case has ever held that solicitation alone is sufficient for general jurisdiction"

Noting that the court had not located any post-Rollins cases finding that federal due process requirements had been met where Illinois due process requirements were not

In Keller, the Illinois Appellate Court held that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the defendant sought and hired an Illinois resident to fly an airplane that the plaintiff alleged was unsafe, resulting in the Illinois resident's death.