40 Cited authorities

  1. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,203 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
  2. Pennhurst State School Hosp. v. Halderman

    465 U.S. 89 (1984)   Cited 13,440 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sovereign immunity prohibits federal courts from "instruct[ing] state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law"
  3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 10,830 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
  4. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle

    429 U.S. 274 (1977)   Cited 8,982 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding if a plaintiff can show a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, the district court should go on to determine whether the defendant has shown "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision ... even in the absence of the protected conduct"
  5. Alden v. Maine

    527 U.S. 706 (1999)   Cited 2,309 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sovereign immunity prohibits a private citizen from suing a State in state court
  6. College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board

    527 U.S. 666 (1999)   Cited 1,661 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is no fundamental property right in "the activity of doing business, or the activity of making a profit"
  7. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,588 times   109 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) )
  8. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer

    427 U.S. 445 (1976)   Cited 1,637 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state sovereign immunity is necessarily limited by the enforcement provision of the Fourteenth Amendment
  9. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney

    495 U.S. 299 (1990)   Cited 770 times
    Holding a statute providing for "consent to suits, actions, or proceedings of any form or nature" was ambiguous
  10. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank

    527 U.S. 627 (1999)   Cited 388 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding remedy unconstitutional because its scope was incongruous to the scant history of unconstitutional state action
  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 486,856 times   688 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
  12. 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 345,885 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
  13. Section 1346 - United States as defendant

    28 U.S.C. § 1346   Cited 24,038 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"
  14. Section 41-4-18 - Jurisdiction; appeals; venue

    N.M. Stat. § 41-4-18   Cited 19 times

    A. Exclusive original jurisdiction for any claim under the Tort Claims Act shall be in the district courts of New Mexico. Appeals may be taken as provided by law. B. Venue for any claim against the state or its public employees, pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, shall be in the district court for the county in which a plaintiff resides, or in which the cause of action arose, or in Santa Fe county. Venue for all other claims pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, shall be in the county in which the principal