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.
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.
Pages in category "United States personal jurisdiction case law" The following 24 pages are in this category, out of 24 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
Pages in category "United States Internet case law" The following 112 pages are in this category, out of 112 total. ... Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases in the ...
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."
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.
Sean "Diddy" Combs cases. Sean "Diddy" Combs — founder of Bad Boy Records and the Sean John brand — is due to stand trial in federal court in Manhattan on May 5 on a sex-trafficking indictment ...
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: