Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., et al.

The Court held that the personal jurisdiction provision of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (PSJVTA) does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In product liability suits against an out-of-state manufacturer over accidents in Montana and Minnesota, the Court ruled that the claims arose out of or related to Ford's business and marketing activities, supporting the states' specific personal jurisdiction.· AI-written

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.

The Court held that Montana courts lacked personal jurisdiction over a railroad that was neither incorporated nor headquartered in Montana, even though it had over 2,000 miles of track and 2,000 employees there.· AI-written

The court held that for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, its relationship with the defendant must arise out of contacts that the defendant created with the forum; the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum.

The Court considered whether a U.S. court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company because its subsidiary acts for it in the forum state, and held that American courts lacked jurisdiction over claims based on conduct outside the United States.· AI-written

The Court held that a court may not exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that has not purposefully availed itself of doing business in the jurisdiction or placed goods in the stream of commerce in the expectation they would be purchased in the jurisdiction.

The Court held that the connection between Goodyear and its subsidiaries with the state of North Carolina was not strong enough to establish general personal jurisdiction over the companies.

The Court unanimously held that a state court may constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident served with process while temporarily visiting the state, though the justices disagreed on the reasoning.· AI-written

The Court held that purchases in the United States by an out-of-state corporation did not establish general personal jurisdiction.

The United States Supreme Court held that a court within a state could assert personal jurisdiction over the author and editor of a national magazine which published an allegedly libelous article about a resident of that state, and where the magazine had wide circulation in that state.

The United States Supreme Court held that a state could assert personal jurisdiction over the publisher of a national magazine which published an allegedly defamatory article about a resident of another state, and where the magazine had wide circulation in that state.

The court held that a parent allowing a child to overstay an agreed parenting plan in another state does not establish minimum contacts for the purpose of personal jurisdiction over that parent.

In a case over a state's jurisdiction based on a defendant's stock ownership in a corporation incorporated there, the Court held that such ownership, without more, was insufficient to let that state's courts exercise jurisdiction over the defendant.· AI-written

The Court declared that California did not violate the Due Process Clause by entering a judgment upon a Texas insurance company who was engaged in a dispute over a policy it maintained with a California resident.

The Court held that an Ohio state court could exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation on the basis of that company's "continuous and systematic" contacts with the state of Ohio.

The court held that a migratory divorce is entitled to res judicata when both parties participated in the action, both parties had the opportunity to contest personal jurisdiction, and the forum state does not allow the divorce to be collaterally attacked.