471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 17,212 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.
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 23,009 times 110 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 a defendant's conduct was purposefully directed toward New York because the defendant offered bags for sale on its website to New York customers and shipped at least one bag to a New York customer
Finding New York law applied to tort claim where all of the challenged conduct occurred in New York even though the plaintiffs' injuries occurred in Israel, where they were domiciled
Holding defendant did not "ha[ve] a general business presence in [Texas] based on the residence of two employees . . . [who] work[ed] from home and report[ed] to supervisors located in Toronto, Canada" because "[w]hile their presence [was] certainly a regular contact with Texas, it [was] not substantial enough to create a general business presence in Texas"
Holding that use of the internet affects situs of injury inquiry because of the "speed and ease with which the internet may allow out of state actions to cause injury"
Holding that "conclusory non-fact-specific jurisdictional allegations" and "legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation" do not meet the burden of a prima facie showing of jurisdiction
Holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate antitrust injury where their "economic expert conceded that he had performed no analysis of the consumer effect of defendants’ purportedly anticompetitive conduct"
Holding that Defendants transacted business in New York where they "maintained a continuous and on-going commercial relationship with Plaintiff, a New York business," and "traveled to New York on two occasions to attend . . . training programs"
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 72,380 times 128 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302 Cited 4,333 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"