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

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

Calder v. Jones

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"

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

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"

Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

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) )

Dole Food Co. v. Watts

Holding that because purposeful direction was established, it was "obvious" that the second prong of the minimum contacts test was also satisfied

Destfino v. Reiswig

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"

Kinslow v. Pullara

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"

Daly-Murphy v. Winston

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 . . ."

Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co.

Holding that an intervening Supreme Court decision "undercut the . . . theory" of the Ninth Circuit decision

Hayes v. Whitman

Holding that “[b]ecause review of Plaintiffs' claim is available under the Clean Water Act, it is not subject to review under the APA”

Rule 32.1 - Citing Judicial Dispositions

Permitting court to cite to unpublished federal judicial opinions

Section 362 - Automatic stay

Concluding that cause exists to lift the stay because no bankruptcy purpose would be served by keeping the stay in place

Section 1391 - Venue generally

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Rule 36 - Entry of Judgment; Notice

Specifying that clerk enters “judgment” upon receiving court's conceptually distinct “opinion” or instructions

Section 1965 - Venue and process

Providing for special RICO venue

Section 309 - Performance of duties of director

Codifying business judgment rule

Section 2793 - Obligation in writing and signed by surety