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.
23 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1977–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
International Shoe Co. v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2020To satisfy the due process prong of the personal jurisdiction analysis, there must be sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ between the nonresident defendant and our State ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Skinner, 361 N.C. at 122 , 638 S.E.2d at 210 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 90 L. 2020To satisfy the due process prong of the personal jurisdiction analysis, there must be sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ between the nonresident defendant and our State ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Skinner, 361 N.C. at 122 , 638 S.E.2d at 210 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 90 L. | 8 | 9 |
Skinner v. Preferred Creditgreen2 sentences2020To satisfy the due process prong of the personal jurisdiction analysis, there must be sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ between the nonresident defendant and our State ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Skinner, 361 N.C. at 122 , 638 S.E.2d at 210 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 90 L. 2020To satisfy the due process prong of the personal jurisdiction analysis, there must be sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ between the nonresident defendant and our State ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Skinner, 361 N.C. at 122 , 638 S.E.2d at 210 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 90 L. | 4 | 7 |
Milliken v. Meyergreen2 sentences2014Ed. 95, 102 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. -8- Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 , 61 S. Ct. 339, 343 , 85 L. 2014Ed. 95, 102 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. -8- Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 , 61 S. Ct. 339, 343 , 85 L. | 3 | 3 |
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.green1 sentence2020The “primary focus” of the personal jurisdiction inquiry “is the defendant’s relationship to the forum State.” Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1779 (2017). 16. | 1 | 1 |
Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences2017While Joshua is correct that "marriage by itself cannot support a ... court's exercise of [personal] jurisdiction over a spouse[,]" Kulko , 436 U.S. at 93 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 at 1697, 56 L.Ed.2d at 142 , the wedding ceremonies may properly be considered in conjunction with Joshua's other contacts with North Carolina. 2017While Joshua is correct that "marriage by itself cannot support a ... court's exercise of [personal] jurisdiction over a spouse[,]" Kulko , 436 U.S. at 93 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 at 1697, 56 L.Ed.2d at 142 , the wedding ceremonies may properly be considered in conjunction with Joshua's other contacts with North Carolina. | 1 | 1 |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewiczgreen2 sentences2013Accord Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 482 (1985) (holding that choice of law provisions are not determinative, but may be considered). [29] Cases that rely heavily on choice of law provisions as a determining factor in a personal jurisdiction analysis typically involve one resident and one nonresident contracting party. 2013See id. (noting that the choice of law provision was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction only when coupled with the "20 year interdependent relationship" between the nonresident defendant and the forum state). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Refuel America, Inc.green1 sentence2008Brown v. Refuel Am., Inc., 652 S.E.2d 389, 391 (N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp.green2 sentences2007Dillon v. Funding Corp., 291 N.C. 674, 676 , 231 S.E.2d 629, 630-31 (1977). *634 “Upon a defendant’s personal jurisdiction challenge, the plaintiff has the burden of proving prima facie that a statutory basis for jurisdiction exists. 2007Dillon v. Funding Corp., 291 N.C. 674, 676 , 231 S.E.2d 629, 630-31 (1977). *634 “Upon a defendant’s personal jurisdiction challenge, the plaintiff has the burden of proving prima facie that a statutory basis for jurisdiction exists. | 1 | 1 |
Phoenix America Corp. v. Brisseygreen2 sentences2005By not engaging in the due process analysis, the majority overlooks the rule that due process "is the crucial inquiry and the ultimate determinative factor in assessing whether jurisdiction may be asserted under the `long-arm' statute." Phoenix America Corp. v. Brissey, 46 N.C.App. 527, 530 , 265 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1980); see also, Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 706 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 680 (1974) ("due process, and not the language of the statute, is the ultimate test of `long-arm' jurisdiction over a nonresident"). 2005By not engaging in the due process analysis, the majority overlooks the rule that due process "is the crucial inquiry and the ultimate determinative factor in assessing whether jurisdiction may be asserted under the `long-arm' statute." Phoenix America Corp. v. Brissey, 46 N.C.App. 527, 530 , 265 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1980); see also, Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 706 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 680 (1974) ("due process, and not the language of the statute, is the ultimate test of `long-arm' jurisdiction over a nonresident"). | 1 | 1 |
Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katzgreen2 sentences2005By not engaging in the due process analysis, the majority overlooks the rule that due process "is the crucial inquiry and the ultimate determinative factor in assessing whether jurisdiction may be asserted under the `long-arm' statute." Phoenix America Corp. v. Brissey, 46 N.C.App. 527, 530 , 265 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1980); see also, Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 706 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 680 (1974) ("due process, and not the language of the statute, is the ultimate test of `long-arm' jurisdiction over a nonresident"). 2005By not engaging in the due process analysis, the majority overlooks the rule that due process "is the crucial inquiry and the ultimate determinative factor in assessing whether jurisdiction may be asserted under the `long-arm' statute." Phoenix America Corp. v. Brissey, 46 N.C.App. 527, 530 , 265 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1980); see also, Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 706 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 680 (1974) ("due process, and not the language of the statute, is the ultimate test of `long-arm' jurisdiction over a nonresident"). | 1 | 1 |
Mullen v. Norfolk & Carolina Canal Co.green2 sentences1977See e.g., Mullen v. Canal Co., 114 N.C. 8 , 19 S.E. 106 (1894). 1977See e.g., Mullen v. Canal Co., 114 N.C. 8 , 19 S.E. 106 (1894). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wyatt v. Walt Disney World, Co.
green
2 sentences2007Where unverified allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint meet plaintiff’s initial burden of proving the existence of jurisdiction and defendant does not contradict plaintiff’s allegations in its sworn affidavit, such allegations are accepted as true and deemed controlling!)]” Wyatt v. Walt Disney World, Co., 151 N.C. 2006Where unverified allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint meet plaintiff’s initial burden of proving the existence of jurisdiction and defendant does not contradict plaintiff’s allegations in its sworn affidavit, such allegations are accepted as true and deemed controlling. *250 Wyatt v. Walt Disney World, Co., 151 N.C. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist.
green
1 sentence2023Ford, 141 S. Ct. at 1026–28. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bauer v. Douglas Aquatics, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Bauer, 698 S.E.2d at 761 (quoting Banc of Am. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Deer Corporation v. Carter
green
1 sentence2011App. 314 , 629 S.E.2d 159 (2006) found no jurisdiction over claims of alleged tortious interference by a foreign defendant with a North Carolina contract. {52} In LabCorp, the court rejected the personal jurisdiction challenge by a former LabCorp employee with a territory outside of North Carolina. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Seiber Et Vir v. Oregon, by and Through the Oregon State Board of Forestry
green
1 sentence2008Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1105 , 154 L. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Brockton Hospital v. National Labor Relations Board
green
1 sentence2008Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1105 , 154 L. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Als Scan, Incorporated v. Digital Service Consultants, Incorporated
green
1 sentence2008Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1105 , 154 L. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Havey v. Valentine
green
1 sentence2008App. 812 , 616 S.E.2d 642 (2005), adopted the Fourth Circuit’s personal jurisdiction test for internet communications set out in ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Godwin v. Walls
green
1 sentence2002App. 341, 347 , 455 S.E.2d 473, 479 , disc. review allowed, 341 N.C. 419 , 461 S.E.2d 757 (1995) *163 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Durham County ex rel. Holloway v. Tilley
green
1 sentence2002App. 341, 347 , 455 S.E.2d 473, 479 , disc. review allowed, 341 N.C. 419 , 461 S.E.2d 757 (1995) *163 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Godwin v. Walls
green
2 sentences2002Upon a defendant’s personal jurisdiction challenge, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving prima facie that a statutory basis for jurisdiction exists.” Godwin v. Walls, 118 N.C. 2002App. 341, 347 , 455 S.E.2d 473, 479 , disc. review allowed, 341 N.C. 419 , 461 S.E.2d 757 (1995) *163 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
United Buying Group, Inc. v. Coleman
green
2 sentences1995Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: “ ‘[D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a [nonresident] defendant to a judgment in personam, ... he have certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ ” Buying Group, Inc. v. Coleman, 296 N.C. at 515 , 251 S.E.2d at 614 (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L. 1995Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: “ ‘[D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a [nonresident] defendant to a judgment in personam, ... he have certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ ” Buying Group, Inc. v. Coleman, 296 N.C. at 515 , 251 S.E.2d at 614 (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee
green
2 sentences1994Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 , 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). 1994Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 , 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.