Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This launched a separate line of reasoning with regard to jurisdiction in Internet cases focused on the specific characteristics of the web, and was cited by Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger. Within the same year of the Bensusan decision, Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com gave rise to the Zippo test for personal jurisdiction in Internet cases.
Zippo is a landmark opinion regarding personal jurisdiction for courts deciding Internet-oriented disputes, and it is one of the most frequently cited Internet law precedents. The case established a standard of jurisdictional analysis now known as the "Zippo test," or the "Zippo sliding scale test."
Under these circumstances, the court found that personal jurisdiction was proper under a theory of national jurisdiction: the defendant had targeted the U.S. at large from outside of the territory and intended to avail himself of the opportunity of selling test answers to a U.S. graduate school entrance test to his most likely customers: Americans.
Minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction based on a libelous publication United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden: 465 U.S. 208 (1984) Privileges and Immunities clause: Oliver v. United States: 466 U.S. 170 (1984) Reaffirmed open fields doctrine in a case where the defendant grew marijuana in his field
Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries. (a) Acts which are the basis of jurisdiction. As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary, or his executor or administrator, who in person or through an agent: . . . 2.
Personal jurisdiction in internet cases in the United States Personal jurisdiction CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson [ 1 ] was a court case heard before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which held that contacts and contracts negotiated through the Internet with a party in a different state were sufficient to grant personal jurisdiction in that state.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. [1]
Personal jurisdiction is largely a constitutional requirement, though also shaped by state long-arm statutes and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while venue is purely statutory. It is possible for either venue or personal jurisdiction to preclude a court from hearing a case. Consider these examples: