Cases
- Am. Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co. No. 000974 (Va. March 2, 2001) Where plaintiff and five unnamed defendants are all anonymous, personal jurisdiction is at best unclear. Principles of comity do not require that Virginia courts give deference to an Indiana court's order permitting a plaintiff to proceed anonymously. Concern over possible financial harm does not justify allowing plaintiff to remain anonymous while using powers of discovery to unmask defendants.
- Am. Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (Mendoza) 90 Cal.App.4th 1 (2001) Forum selection clause in Internet service provider contract that designated Virginia as the jurisdiction with Virginia choice of law provisions does not apply under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civ. Code 1750 et seq., because it violates public policy.
- Amberson Holdings LLC v. Westside Story Newspaper C.A. No. 00-1108 (N.J. Dist. August 22, 2000) A contract with a New Jersey hosting service, even coupled with the act of using a New Jersey computer to serve web pages, does not amount to minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
- Blumenthal v. Drudge 992 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998) Allowing exercise of personal jurisdiction.
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz 471 U.S. 462 (1985) A substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines, thus obviating the need for physical presence within a State in which business is conducted. So long as a commercial actor's efforts are "purposefully directed" toward residents of another State, we have consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction there.
- Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson (6th Cir. 1996) CompuServe made a prima facie showing that Texas defendant's contacts with Ohio were sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
- E.E.O.C. v. Arabian American Oil Co. 499 U.S. 244 (1991) U.S. Laws presumed to be domestic in scope only, absent a specific grant of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 U.S. 310 (1945) Minimum contacts must create a substantial connection with the forum state.
- Northern Light Technology, Inc. v. Northern Lights Club No. 00-1641 (1st Cir. January 8, 2000) Immunity from service of process while a litigant disputing jurisdiction is a right conferred by the district court itself, so proper service may be effected at the motion to quash hearing itself. While mere registration of multiple domain names is not alone evidence of bad faith, registration of famous marks can show bad faith.
- Quill Corp. v. Heitkamp 504 U.S. 298 (1992) State's enforcement of the use tax placed an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce). However, the Court also ruled that "to the extent that this Court's decisions have indicated that the (Due Pocess) Clause requires a physical presence in a State (as a nexus for taxation), they are overruled."
- Starmedia Network, Inc. v. Star Media, Inc. 2001 WL 417118 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2001) Where a company engaging in interstate commerce does not take online orders or sell any products directly over the Internet, but does provide customers with access to certain confidential information through a password system, and does support an exchange of information through electronic mail, there are sufficient minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction.
- U.S. v. Thomas (6th Cir. 1996) denial of appeal of convictions and sentences for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1462 and 1465 , federal obscenity laws, in connection with their operation of an electronic bulletin board.
- Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson 444 U.S. 286 (1980) Broadening the "purposeful availment" requirement when the defendant is a commercial actor.
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
