38 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 6,216 times 240 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 5,713 times 88 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Walden v. Fiore
571 U.S. 277 (2014) Cited 4,738 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that, for specific jurisdiction, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State" (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985))
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 17,517 times 47 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 9,538 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 11,138 times 33 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
Shaffer v. Heitner
433 U.S. 186 (1977) Cited 3,237 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that, once a judgment is validly rendered against a debtor, the judgment creditor may sue to satisfy the debt with property in a state that lacks personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 2,893 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert
330 U.S. 501 (1947) Cited 5,689 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that private interest factors include the "availability of compulsory process for attendance of un-willing, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses"
Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink
284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 1,571 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding website-operator defendant's magazine advertisements supported the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant also ran local radio advertisements
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 367,795 times 969 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 75,349 times 132 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
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 29,722 times 192 Legal Analyses
Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR
Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
U.S. Const. amend. XIV Cited 11,976 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that no state "shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Section 410.10 - Generally
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 Cited 1,406 times 1 Legal Analyses
Allowing for jurisdiction over non-residents coextensive with due process requirements

Wilcox v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

38 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, for specific jurisdiction, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State" (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985))

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 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

Holding that, once a judgment is validly rendered against a debtor, the judgment creditor may sue to satisfy the debt with property in a state that lacks personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor

Holding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"

Holding that private interest factors include the "availability of compulsory process for attendance of un-willing, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses"

Holding website-operator defendant's magazine advertisements supported the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant also ran local radio advertisements

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

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

Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

Providing that no state "shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Allowing for jurisdiction over non-residents coextensive with due process requirements