480 U.S. 102 (1987) Cited 4,885 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
465 U.S. 783 (1984) Cited 4,640 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"
454 U.S. 235 (1981) Cited 4,751 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that potential change in law cannot, by itself, fend off dismissal under forum non conveniens absent showing that new law is "clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory"
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,672 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) )
Holding that preventing later-served defendants from removing actions to federal court "could deprive some defendants of their right to a federal forum . . . and encourage plaintiffs to engage in unfair manipulation by delaying service on defendants most likely to remove"
Finding a lack of minimum contacts because of the plaintiff's "failure throughout this litigation to look at each separate person's contacts with Illinois and his assumption that the defendants could instead be treated as a group"
Holding "[t]here is no valid basis for a claim under section 1983, in that [Plaintiff's] allegations are against federal officials acting under color of federal law. Section 1983 provides a remedy only for deprivation of constitutional rights by a person acting under color of law of any state . . ."
Except as prescribed by the next section, a suretyship obligation must be in writing, and signed by the surety; but the writing need not express a consideration. Ca. Civ. Code § 2793 Amended by Stats. 1939, Ch. 453.