15 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,616 times 236 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown
564 U.S. 915 (2011) Cited 5,201 times 86 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,821 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.
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall
466 U.S. 408 (1984) Cited 9,269 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
O'Connor v. Sandy Lane
496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 1,133 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a vacation company purposefully contacted Pennsylvania by mailing brochures and calling Pennsylvania residents
IMO Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert AG
155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998) Cited 1,030 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that minimum contacts do not exist in an intentional tort case unless the defendant " expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum"; the mere fact that the harm caused by the defendant was primarily felt in the forum because the plaintiff resided there is not enough
Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, National Ass'n v. Farino
960 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1992) Cited 1,123 times
Holding that plaintiff's right to conduct jurisdictional discovery should be sustained when factual allegations suggest the possible existence of requisite contacts between the defendant and the forum state with "reasonable particularity"
Provident Nat. v. Cal. Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n
819 F.2d 434 (3d Cir. 1987) Cited 1,039 times
Holding general jurisdiction proper where the defendant had no property in Pennsylvania and conducted no advertising and only a small percentage of its business in the state, but "the nature of [defendant's] contacts with Pennsylvania . . . was central to the conduct of its business."
D'Jamoos v. Pilatus Aircraft
566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 461 times
Holding that transfer under this statute is appropriate where a court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant
Pennzoil Products Co. v. Colelli Associates
149 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 1998) Cited 431 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court may assert personal jurisdiction "over non-resident defendants to the extent permissible under the law of the state where the district court sits"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,805 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc. et al

15 Cited authorities

Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

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.

Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

Holding a vacation company purposefully contacted Pennsylvania by mailing brochures and calling Pennsylvania residents

Holding that minimum contacts do not exist in an intentional tort case unless the defendant " expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum"; the mere fact that the harm caused by the defendant was primarily felt in the forum because the plaintiff resided there is not enough

Holding that plaintiff's right to conduct jurisdictional discovery should be sustained when factual allegations suggest the possible existence of requisite contacts between the defendant and the forum state with "reasonable particularity"

Holding general jurisdiction proper where the defendant had no property in Pennsylvania and conducted no advertising and only a small percentage of its business in the state, but "the nature of [defendant's] contacts with Pennsylvania . . . was central to the conduct of its business."

Holding that transfer under this statute is appropriate where a court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant

Holding that district court may assert personal jurisdiction "over non-resident defendants to the extent permissible under the law of the state where the district court sits"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss