Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
32 Pennsylvania opinions name it 10 courts 1979–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewiczgreen2 sentences2005Pennsylvania has adopted the minimum contacts test as announced by the United States Supreme Court in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), in order to determine whether jurisdiction may be asserted over a nonresident defendant. 2002See, e.g., Kubik v. Letteri, 532 Pa. 10, 19-20 , 614 A.2d 1110, 1115 (1992) (expressly adopting the minimum contacts test advocated by the United States Supreme Court in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)). | 7 | 11 |
Kubik v. Letterigreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Kubik v. Letteri, 532 Pa. 10, 19-20 , 614 A.2d 1110, 1115 (1992) (expressly adopting the minimum contacts test advocated by the United States Supreme Court in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)). 2002See, e.g., Kubik v. Letteri, 532 Pa. 10, 19-20 , 614 A.2d 1110, 1115 (1992) (expressly adopting the minimum contacts test advocated by the United States Supreme Court in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)). | 5 | 6 |
International Shoe Co. v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2019As a separate legal entity, a parent corporation is generally not subject to the jurisdictions of its subsidiaries, absent overt interaction with the forum state that would satisfy the minimum contacts standard established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). 2000In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), the Court redefined this principle, concluding that the minimum contacts requirement performs two distinct functions: (1) protecting the defendants against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient form; and (2) ensuring that states do not overreach beyond the limitations imposed on them by their status as “coequal sovereigns in a federal system.” Id. at 292 , 100 S.Ct. 559 . ¶ 13 A defendant’s contacts with the forum state (in this case, Pennsylvania) must be such that maintenance of | 2 | 4 |
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsongreen2 sentences2000In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), the Court redefined this principle, concluding that the minimum contacts requirement performs two distinct functions: (1) protecting the defendants against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient form; and (2) ensuring that states do not overreach beyond the limitations imposed on them by their status as “coequal sovereigns in a federal system.” Id. at 292 , 100 S.Ct. 559 . ¶ 13 A defendant’s contacts with the forum state (in this case, Pennsylvania) must be such that maintenance of 2000In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), the Court redefined this principle, concluding that the minimum contacts requirement performs two distinct functions: (1) protecting the defendants against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient form; and (2) ensuring that states do not overreach beyond the limitations imposed on them by their status as “coequal sovereigns in a federal system.” Id. at 292 , 100 S.Ct. 559 . ¶ 13 A defendant’s contacts with the forum state (in this case, Pennsylvania) must be such that maintenance of | 1 | 5 |
Engle v. Englegreen2 sentences2026“The purpose of the minimum-contacts test is to protect a defendant from having to litigate a matter in a distant forum unless his contacts with that forum make it just to force him to defend there.” Gaboury, 988 A.2d at 679 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]his court must analyze whether [the defendant’s] conduct and connection with Pennsylvania are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court here.” Engle, 603 A.2d at 657 (emphasis, quotation marks, and citation omitted). 2026“It is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposely avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Id. (brackets, quotation marks, and citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Gaboury v. Gabourygreen1 sentence2026“The purpose of the minimum-contacts test is to protect a defendant from having to litigate a matter in a distant forum unless his contacts with that forum make it just to force him to defend there.” Gaboury, 988 A.2d at 679 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]his court must analyze whether [the defendant’s] conduct and connection with Pennsylvania are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court here.” Engle, 603 A.2d at 657 (emphasis, quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Hanson v. Dencklagreen1 sentence2000The minimum contacts requirement “will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails [himself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Id. at 475 (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)). | 1 | 1 |
Shaffer v. Heitnergreen1 sentence1991See also, Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences1991Finally, the lead opinion noted that: This minimum contacts analysis "is not susceptible of mechanical application, [but requires that] the facts of each case must be weighed to determine whether the requisite `affiliating circumstances' are present." Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). 1991Finally, the lead opinion noted that: This minimum contacts analysis "is not susceptible of mechanical application, [but requires that] the facts of each case must be weighed to determine whether the requisite `affiliating circumstances' are present." Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). | 3 | 1979–2009 |
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
green
2 sentences2009The purpose of the minimum-contacts test is to protect a defendant from having to litigate a matter in a distant forum unless his contacts with that forum “make it just to force him to defend there.” Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 807 , 105 S.Ct. 2965 , 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985). 2009The purpose of the minimum-contacts test is to protect a defendant from having to litigate a matter in a distant forum unless his contacts with that forum “make it just to force him to defend there.” Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 807 , 105 S.Ct. 2965 , 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985). | 2 | 2001–2009 |
Commonwealth ex rel. Derry v. Rundle
green
1 sentence2019Botwinick, supra at 352-53 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Daimler AG v. Bauman
green
1 sentence2018This narrow view of consent by registration corresponds with the rationale for exercising jurisdiction under the minimum contacts standard the High Court discussed in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 - 16 - J-A22039-17 (2015), and it avoids the due process concerns that I believe proliferate in the federal courts’ analyses in Bane and Bors. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Fidelity Leasing, Inc. v. Limestone County Board of Education
green
1 sentence2015Bd. of Educ., 758 A.2d 1207 , 1211 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2000). -9- J-A08042-15 N.T. argues, in essence, that because F.F. “transacted a business agreement in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with the private investigator to perform services regarding” N.T., the minimum contacts requirement of the Due Process Clause is satisfied. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Schiavone v. Aveta
green
1 sentence2015Kubik v. Letteri, 614 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 1992); Mendel v. Williams, 53 A.3d 810 (Pa. Superior Ct. 2012); Schiavone v. Aveta, 41 A.3d 861 (Pa. Superior Ct. 2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mendel v. Williams
green
1 sentence2015Kubik v. Letteri, 614 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 1992); Mendel v. Williams, 53 A.3d 810 (Pa. Superior Ct. 2012); Schiavone v. Aveta, 41 A.3d 861 (Pa. Superior Ct. 2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Allied-Signal, Inc. Ex Rel. Bendix Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 30-31 (quoting Quill, 504 U.S. at 312 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Heitkamp
red
2 sentences2014Id. at 30-31 (quoting Quill, 504 U.S. at 312 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 ). 2014Id. at 30-31 (quoting Quill, 504 U.S. at 312 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Mellon Bank (East) Psfs, National Association v. Kenneth v. Farino Leslie Trinin Robert Levitas Eileen Michaels
green
1 sentence2013While physical presence in the forum state is certainly relevant to a minimum contacts analysis, a lack of a physical connection to the forum is “not detrimental to a personal jurisdiction analysis.” Mellon Bank (East) PSFS Nat’l Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1992). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Ervin v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
green
1 sentence2012In Ervin, the court determined that minimum contacts were not established by the corporation selling products to Utah among many other locations in the United States as “knowledge of the mere possibility that its product might be taken into a region of the country in which Utah is located is not sufficient... to make a difference in this regard.” Id., 128 P3d at 18 (quoting Perry, 779 P2d at 667). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Radcliffe v. Akhavan
green
1 sentence2012Radcliffe, 875 P2d at 612 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Efford v. Jockey Club
green
1 sentence2008Id. at 13. ¶ 13 In Efford, supra at 374 , we adopted the Third Circuit’s sliding-scale test in conducting the minimum contacts inquiry for general personal jurisdiction. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
A. UBERTI & C. v. Leonardo in & for PIMA
green
2 sentences2005The Plaintiff, relying upon a decision from the Arizona Supreme Court, A. Uberti and C. v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565 , 892 P.2d 1354 , cert. denied, 516 U.S. 906 , 116 S.Ct. 273 , 133 L.Ed.2d 194 (1995), argues that Takeda’s act of seeking to market its products to the entire United States, through its agreements with its subsidiary, TAP, is sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts requirement. 5 Essentially, the Plaintiff contends that Takeda’s conduct in creating TAP as a marketing and distribution system for Takeda’s products estab *631 lishes the minimum contacts necessary, because through 2005The Plaintiff, relying upon a decision from the Arizona Supreme Court, A. Uberti and C. v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565 , 892 P.2d 1354 , cert. denied, 516 U.S. 906 , 116 S.Ct. 273 , 133 L.Ed.2d 194 (1995), argues that Takeda’s act of seeking to market its products to the entire United States, through its agreements with its subsidiary, TAP, is sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts requirement. 5 Essentially, the Plaintiff contends that Takeda’s conduct in creating TAP as a marketing and distribution system for Takeda’s products estab *631 lishes the minimum contacts necessary, because through | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wall v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005The Plaintiff, relying upon a decision from the Arizona Supreme Court, A. Uberti and C. v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565 , 892 P.2d 1354 , cert. denied, 516 U.S. 906 , 116 S.Ct. 273 , 133 L.Ed.2d 194 (1995), argues that Takeda’s act of seeking to market its products to the entire United States, through its agreements with its subsidiary, TAP, is sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts requirement. 5 Essentially, the Plaintiff contends that Takeda’s conduct in creating TAP as a marketing and distribution system for Takeda’s products estab *631 lishes the minimum contacts necessary, because through 2005The Plaintiff, relying upon a decision from the Arizona Supreme Court, A. Uberti and C. v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565 , 892 P.2d 1354 , cert. denied, 516 U.S. 906 , 116 S.Ct. 273 , 133 L.Ed.2d 194 (1995), argues that Takeda’s act of seeking to market its products to the entire United States, through its agreements with its subsidiary, TAP, is sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts requirement. 5 Essentially, the Plaintiff contends that Takeda’s conduct in creating TAP as a marketing and distribution system for Takeda’s products estab *631 lishes the minimum contacts necessary, because through | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McKnight v. American Cyanamid Co.
green
1 sentence2005The Plaintiff, relying upon a decision from the Arizona Supreme Court, A. Uberti and C. v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565 , 892 P.2d 1354 , cert. denied, 516 U.S. 906 , 116 S.Ct. 273 , 133 L.Ed.2d 194 (1995), argues that Takeda’s act of seeking to market its products to the entire United States, through its agreements with its subsidiary, TAP, is sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts requirement. 5 Essentially, the Plaintiff contends that Takeda’s conduct in creating TAP as a marketing and distribution system for Takeda’s products estab *631 lishes the minimum contacts necessary, because through | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
green
2 sentences1991Id. 501 Pa. at 658 , 462 A.2d at 1306 . 1991Id. 501 Pa. at 658 , 462 A.2d at 1306 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Lebel, 115 N.J. at 320 , 558 A.2d at 1255 , citing World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 295 , 100 S.Ct. at 567 , 62 L.Ed.2d at 501 . 1990Lebel, 115 N.J. at 320 , 558 A.2d at 1255 , citing World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 295 , 100 S.Ct. at 567 , 62 L.Ed.2d at 501 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Kingsley & Keith (Canada) Ltd. v. Mercer International Corp.
green
1 sentence1983We recognize that it may be argued that this is too broad a reading. [Citation omitted.] 291 Pa.Superior Ct. at 108, 435 A.2d at 591 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.