§Why CasetextPricing

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v. S.C. (ANDERSON)

Real Party in Interest, Bracy Anderson et al., Answer Brief on the Merits

31 Cited authorities

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,609 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

  2. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,196 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

  3. Walden v. Fiore

    571 U.S. 277 (2014)   Cited 4,293 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.”

  4. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 16,817 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.

  5. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

    466 U.S. 408 (1984)   Cited 9,266 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

  6. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,871 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

  7. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

    465 U.S. 770 (1984)   Cited 3,023 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because the defendant was "carrying on a part of its general business" in the state, it was fair to subject the defendant to jurisdiction for a claim arising out of that activity

  8. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,573 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) )

  9. Shaffer v. Heitner

    433 U.S. 186 (1977)   Cited 3,169 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, once a judgment is validly rendered against a debtor, the judgment creditor may sue to satisfy the debt with property in a state that lacks personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor

  10. Hanson v. Denckla

    357 U.S. 235 (1958)   Cited 7,865 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant trustee was inappropriate when defendant's only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiff-settlor's unilateral activity of moving to Florida

  11. Section 410.10 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10   Cited 1,321 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Allowing for jurisdiction over non-residents coextensive with due process requirements

  12. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,153 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or