green
Positive treatment
Hot · 43 in 5y
Issue: forum selection clauseDE ↗
Issue: personal jurisdiction defenseDE ↗
Issue: minimum contacts analysisDE ↗
Quoted verbatim 14×
87.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2019–2020 ·
…a party to a non-adhesion contract can subject itself to personal jurisdiction via a forum-selection clause.
at p. 148
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…daimler made clear that it is inconsistent with principles of due process for a corporation to be subject to general jurisdiction in every place it does business.
at p. 137
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…plaintiffs typically did not sue de- fendants in fora that had no rational relation to causes of action,
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
GI DI Rushmore Parent, LP v. Donald E Stoops, Jr.
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
a party to a non- adhesion contract can subject itself to personal jurisdiction via a forum selection clause.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co
we no longer live in a time where foreign corporations cannot operate in other states unless they somehow become a resident
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co
we no longer live in a time where foreign page proof pending publication corporations cannot operate in other states unless they somehow become a resident
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co
we no longer live in a time where foreign corporations cannot operate in other states unless they somehow become a resident
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co
we no longer live in a time where foreign page proof pending publication corporations cannot operate in other states unless they somehow become a resident
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Focus Financial Financial Partners, LLC v. Holsopple
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
a party to a non-adhesion contract can subject itself to personal jurisdiction via a forum-selection clause.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
BERK v. EQUIFAX INC.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
exacting such a disproportionate toll on commerce is itself constitutionally problematic.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Derivative Litigation
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
a party to a non-adhesion contract can subject itself to personal jurisdiction via a forum-selection clause.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Dutch Run-Mays Draft, LLC v. Wolf Block, LLP
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
daimler made clear that it is inconsistent with principles of due process for a corporation to be subject to general jurisdiction in every place it does business.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
DUTCH RUN-MAYS DRAFT, LLC VS. WOLF BLOCK, LLP (L-2690-14, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
daimler made clear that it is inconsistent with principles of due process for a corporation to be subject to general jurisdiction in every place it does business.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Timothy Pagliara v. Federal National Mortgage Association
businesses select their states of incorporation and principal places of business with care, because they know that those jurisdictions are in fact 'home' and places where they can be sued generally.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hedger v. Medline Industries, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
until recently . . . . merely doing business in a state was a basis for general jurisdiction there. but as we will later discuss . . . that is no longer enough.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ekpo v. Playa Management USA, LLC
in light of the u.s. supreme court's clarification of the due-process limits on general jurisdiction in and we read our state's registration statutes as providing a means for service of process and not as conferring general jurisdiction.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Deleon v. BNSF Ry. Co.
adding similar language to delaware's registration statute would help dispel any potential uncertainty on the part of foreign corporations as to the effect of complying with delaware's registration statutes on personal jurisdiction.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Erbey Holding Corporation v. Black Rock Financial Management, Inc.
Ct. App. 1993); Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 132-33 (Del. 2016); Bohreer v. Erie Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
James E. Berry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Apr. 28, 2021)). 3 Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 129 (Del. 2016). 4 AeroGlobal Capital Management, LLC v. Cirrus Industries, Inc., 871 A.2d 428, 437 (Del. 2005). 2 a party.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Now Plastics, Inc. v. JC Capital Partners LLC
Prime Rock Energy Cap., LLC, 2017 WL 4856851 , at *3 & n.26 (internal citations 49 omitted). 50 Genuine Parts Co v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 148 (Del. 2016). 51 Def.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Factory Mutual Insurance Company v. Flender Corporation
See, e.g., Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 , 637–39 (2d Cir. 2016) (expressing that Penn- sylvania Fire “has yielded to the doctrinal refinement reflected in Good- year and Daimler and the Court’s 21st century approach to general and specific jurisdiction”); Fidrych v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 952 F.3d 124, 136 (4th Cir. 2020) (“[W]e find it difficult to reconcile the Pennsylvania Fire approach with the modern view of general jurisdiction expressed in the Supreme Court’s recent cases.”); Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 145 (Del. 2016) (stating that most fede…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ITG Brands, LLC v. Reynolds American Inc.
Co., Inc., 261 A.3d 1199 , 1208 (Del. 2021) (explaining that Delaware courts reject contractual interpretations that “produce[] an absurd result” or a result that “no reasonable person would have accepted when entering the contract” (citing Osborn, 991 A.2d at 1160 )); cf. Genuine Parts Company v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 140-41 (Del. 2016) (concluding that compliance with the Delaware’s corporate registration statute should not confer general jurisdiction to “avoid[] the perverse result of subjecting foreign corporations that lawfully do business in Delaware to an overreaching consequ…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Varsity Brands Holding Co. LLC v. Arch Insurance Companyl.
Pa. 2019). 78 Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 126-127 (2014). 79 Tr. 24:11-18, 33:4-6, 35:4-36:8; Arch MTD at 13-14; PIIC MTD at 22-24; Arch MTD Opp’n at 14-16; PIIC MTD Opp’n at 28-29. 80 Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014). 81 Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 130 (Del. 2016) (quoting Helicopteros, 46 U.S. at 414 n.8) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wolf Investments Fund, LLC v. Capital Source 2000, Inc., and William Bromley
(2×)
Ct.) (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919 ; citing Genuine Parts v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 130 (Del. 2016)). 5 the defendant's contacts with the forum.”4 To determine whether this standard is met, Delaware courts must determine whether Delaware’s long-arm statute, 10 Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mason v. Allstate Indemnity Company
Ct. Nov. 10, 2021). 43 See AeroGlobal Capital Management, LLC, 871 A.2d at 437 . 44 Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 130 (Del. 2016) (quoting Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Xactus, LLC v. Mark Sike and CIC Mortgage Credit, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Specific jurisdiction refers to incidents where the “suit aris[es] out of or relate[s] to the [corporation’s] contacts with the forum.”48 To establish specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant pursuant to Sections 3104(c)(1) and (c)(2), “the transaction of business or performance of work and contracting to 44 Id. at 21. 45 Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 129 (Del. 2016) (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 426 (1984) (Brennan, J., dissenting)). 46 Id. (quoting Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 318 ). 47 Altabef v. Neugarten, 202…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Madsen v. Sidwell Air Freight
Co., 390 P.3d 1019, 1021 (Or. 2017) (“[T]he legislature did not intend that appointing a registered agent pursuant to [the Oregon registration statute] would constitute consent to the jurisdiction of the Oregon courts.”); Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 148 (Del. 2016) (holding that “we read [Delaware’s] registration statutes as providing a means for service of process and not as conferring general jurisdiction”); Manning v. PD-Rx Pharms.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Steven F. Urvan v. AMMO, Inc.
(4×)
Co., 266 A.3d 542 , 564 (Pa. 2021) (“[T]he precise issue presented in this appeal may be peculiar to Pennsylvania. . . . [M]ost state statutes do not provide expressly that the act of registering to do business constitutes a specific basis upon which a court may assert general jurisdiction over all claims against a foreign corporation.”), vacated, 600 U.S. 122 (2023). 189 Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 142 (Del. 2016). 190 137 A.3d at 125-26 (discussing Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014)). 191 Genuine Parts, 137 A.3d at 127 . -40- disregard that clear instruction.192 The …
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Steven F. Urvan v. AMMO, Inc.
(4×)
Co., 266 A.3d 542 , 564 (Pa. 2021) (“[T]he precise issue presented in this appeal may be peculiar to Pennsylvania. . . . [M]ost state statutes do not provide expressly that the act of registering to do business constitutes a specific basis upon which a court may assert general jurisdiction over all claims against a foreign corporation.”), vacated, 600 U.S. 122 (2023). 189 Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 142 (Del. 2016). 190 137 A.3d at 125-26 (discussing Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014)). 191 Genuine Parts, 137 A.3d at 127 . -40- disregard that clear instruction.192 The …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CFGI, LLC v. Common C. Holding LP
June 18, 2020) (internal citations omitted). 102 Matthew, 56 A.3d at 1027 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). 103 Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 130 (Del. 2016). 104 BACO Hldgs., Inc. v. Arria Data2Text, Ltd., 2023 WL 2199871 , at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
K&C Logistics, LLC v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. and Daniel Steven Cooper
Mallory, 600 U.S. at 124, 127, 137-39; see Segregated Acct. of Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 898 N.W.2d 70, 82 (Wis. 2017); DeLeon, 426 P. 3d at 9 (“Reading our registration statutes to confer general personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations would swallow the Supreme Court’s due process limitations on the exercise of general personal jurisdiction[.]”); Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 144-48 (Del. 2016). ¶14.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Golden v. ShootProof Holdings, LP
(2×)
Courts can only adjudicate cases in which they have personal jurisdiction over the parties.32 “Because a motion under Rule 12(b)(2) presents factual and legal questions, a court cannot grant it ‘simply by accepting the well pleaded allegations of the complaint as true, because the pleader has no obligation to plead facts that 30 D.I. 9. 31 OB; AB; RB; D.I. 29; D.I. 30 [hereinafter “Hr’g Tr.”]. 32 Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 129 (Del. 2016). 11 show the amenability of the defendant to service of process.’”33 When a defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), the …
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Lenape Properties Management, Inc. v. Prudential Insurance Company of America
(3×)
A plaintiff may invoke the Court’s jurisdiction over a defendant under one of two theories: (1) general jurisdiction, which attaches to conduct by the defendant regardless of where it occurred;6 and (2) specific jurisdiction, which attaches to conduct occurring in the forum jurisdiction.7 1 Compl. ¶ 1, D.I. 1 [hereinafter “Compl.”]. 2 Id. 3 Id. ¶ 3. 4 Id. ¶ 4. 5 Id. 6 Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 129 (Del. 2016) (“[General jurisdiction] grants authority to a state’s courts to assert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant on the basis of wholly unrelated contacts wi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
AHP Services, LLC v. Miles
Personal jurisdiction may be waived through a forum selection clause in a contract.20 A forum selection clause allows parties to agree to a specific forum to litigate their disputes.21 Forum selection clauses are presumptively valid, and the Court need not consider the Delaware Long Arm Statute or the nonresident's minimum contacts with the forum.22 Delaware courts defer to forum selection clauses and routinely “give effect to the terms of private agreements to resolve disputes in a designated judicial forum out of respect for the parties’ contractual designation.”23 19 Id., at ⁋ 10. 2…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Carvana Co. Stockholders Litigation
Co.m 350 U.S. 311, 316 (1956); Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 130 (Del. 2016); see also In re Pilgrim’s Pride, 2019 WL 1224556 , at *10–15 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donaldson v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Company
Nov. 29, 2017) (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919 ; citing Genuine Parts v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 130 (Del. 2016)). 6 Dunfee, 2017 WL 6000495 , at *4 (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 119 , 134 S. Ct. 746, 750 , 187 L.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Douglas Altabef v. Ilan Neugarten
(3×)
ANALYSIS Courts can only adjudicate cases in which they have personal jurisdiction over the parties.38 “Because a motion under Rule 12(b)(2) presents factual and legal questions, a court cannot grant it ‘simply by accepting the well pleaded allegations of the complaint as true, because the pleader has no obligation to plead facts that show the amenability of the defendant to service of process.’”39 When a defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), the plaintiffs have the burden to show a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant by demonstrating “spe…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Techview Investments Limited v. Amstar Poland Property Fund I, L.P.
Dec. 8, 2017). 14 justify litigation wholly unrelated to those activities or (ii) specific jurisdiction based on the defendants suit-related contacts with Delaware.76 The constitutional standard for specific personal jurisdiction remains whether the defendant purposefully established “minimum contacts” in the forum state.77 Contracting with an out-of-state party is insufficient to establish minimum contacts in the out-of-state party’s home forum.78 Delaware’s long-arm statute permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a cause of action arising from th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lone Pine Resources, LP v. William S. Dickey
Corp., 625 A.2d 267, 269 (Del. 1993) (“A court without personal jurisdiction has no power to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim.”). 17 Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 129 (Del. 2016) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999)). 18 Werner v. Miller Tech.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackie L. Sullivan v. A. W. Chesterton, Inc. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI))
(2×)
Id. at 143 (footnotes omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cuppels v. Mountaire Corporation
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The analysis “is not whether a foreign corporation’s in-forum contacts can be said to be in some sense continuous and systematic, it is whether that corporation’s affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” The Court noted that the “paradigm” fora for general jurisdiction over a corporation are its place of incorporation and its principal place of business because those affiliations are “unique” and “easily ascertainable.” But it also acknowledged that general jurisdiction might, “in an exceptiona…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Navarrette Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Id.; cf. 8 Genuine Parts, 137 A.3d at 128, 143 (holding that a Delaware registration statute 9 was an undue burden as to a defendant incorporated in Georgia where the plaintiffs 10 were residents of Georgia and injured in Florida). 11 {22} A different result was reached in Hegna v. Smitty’s Supply, Inc., No. 16- 12 3613, 2017 WL 2563231 (E.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
iBio, Inc. v. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
C. § 3104(c) is to be broadly construed to confer jurisdiction to the maximum extent possible under the Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.17 Delaware law recognizes alternative theories to satisfy the requirements of the long-arm statute, including theories of agency and conspiracy. 18 Second, “the [C]ourt must determine whether subjecting the nonresident defendant to jurisdiction in Delaware violates the 15 Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014); Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 135 (Del. 2016). 16 Def.’s Opening Br. 14-1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: TALC Product Liability Litigation
JNJ does not dispute specific jurisdiction in this Court for the claims brought by Delaware residents, whose injuries allegedly resulted from INJ’s forum- 33 Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 130 (Del. 2016) (quoting Helicopteros Nacl`onales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 , 414 n.8 (1984)). 15 related activities. lt is only the nonresident Plaintiffs’ Complaints that are vulnerable to JNJ’s Motion to Dismiss.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stisser v. SP Bancorp, Inc.
Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 126-28 (Del. 2016). 18 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
EBP Lifestyle Brands Holdings, Inc. v. Yann Boulbain
In contrast, “general jurisdiction . . . grants authority to a state’s courts to ‘assert [] jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant on the basis of wholly unrelated contacts with the forum.’” Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 129 (Del. 2016). 12 Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, 2008 WL 1961156 , at *7 (Del.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 142 (Del. 2016) (footnotes omitted) (quoting Del.
discussed
Cited "see"
Arxada Holdings NA Inc. v. Harvey
See generally 1 Wolfe & Pittenger, supra, § 3.04[c][4] (“[I]n suits in which the incorporation of a Delaware subsidiary is an integral component of the conduct giving rise to the cause of action, the Delaware courts have consistently recognized that a nonresident defendant’s incorporation of such subsidiary constitutes constitutionally sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with Delaware.”). 153 Sternberg v. O’Neil, 550 A.2d 1105 , 1107–08 (Del. 1988), abrogated on other grounds by Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123 (Del. 2016). 154 Harris, 289 A.3d at 305 (quoting Lone Pine Res., …
discussed
Cited "see"
Eichler v. VBIT Technologies Corp.
(D.I. 131 at J] 30, 32); see Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 127-28 (Del. 2016) (explaining that general jurisdiction exists over a business in its state of incorporation); 10 De/.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dettmering v. VBit Technologies Corp.
(D.I. 131 at J] 30, 32); see Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 127-28 (Del. 2016) (explaining that general jurisdiction exists over a business in its state of incorporation); 10 De/.
examined
Cited "see"
Green America Recycling, LLC v. Clean Earth, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Int’l Grp., 965 A.2d at 816 n.195). 68 CLP Toxicology, 2020 WL 3564622 , at *15; accord Endowment Rsch., 2021 WL 841049 , at *6; Toys “R” Us, 318 F.3d at 456 . 69 See Holsopple, 241 A.3d at 801-02. 70 E.g., Mobile Diagnostic, 972 A.2d at 805 . 71 Holsopple, 241 A.3d at 801 (“Where the parties to the forum selection clause have consented freely and knowingly to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction, the clause is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction on a court.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); accord Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123, 148 (Del. 2016); …
cited
Cited "see"
RUFFING v. WIPRO LIMITED
See Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123 (Del. 2016).
cited
Cited "see"
Novinger's, Inc. v. A.J.D. Constr. Co.
See Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec , 137 A.3d 123 , 144-45 & n.119 (Del. 2016) (collecting cases).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mary DOUGHERTY, Plaintiff-Below
v.
Benjamin HIBBITS, Defendant-Below
v.
Benjamin HIBBITS, Defendant-Below
No. 510, 2015.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Apr 15, 2016.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. Georgia (1) · Montana Supreme Court (1)
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, C.A. No. N14C-05-105.
AFFIRMED.