§Why CasetextPricing

Tower Manufacturing Corporation v. Shanghai Ele Manufacturing Corporation

REPLY to Response to Motion re Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel

4 Cited authorities

  1. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 11,014 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

  2. Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp.

    21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 572 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the forum's interest in discouraging injuries within its territory extends to patent infringement actions

  3. Cochran Consulting, Inc. v. Uwatec USA, Inc.

    102 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that "control" was "defined not only as possession, but as the legal right to obtain the documents requested upon demand"

  4. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 72,489 times   129 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