8 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daimler AG v. Baumangreen2 sentences2015A general jurisdiction inquiry "calls for an appraisal of a [defendant's] activities in their entirety, nationwide and worldwide." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U. S. n.20, 134 S. Ct. 746 , 762 n.20 (2014). 2015A general jurisdiction inquiry "calls for an appraisal of a [defendant's] activities in their entirety, nationwide and worldwide." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U. S. , n.20, 134 S. Ct. 746 , 762 n.20 (2014). | 6 | 6 |
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.green2 sentences2015See, e.g., Mavrix Photo, 647 F.3d at 1227 (explaining that the Zippo sliding-scale approach, the primary test for assessing jurisdiction from a website, 'should be of little value in a general jurisdiction analysis" (quoting 4A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 2015See, e.g., Mavrix Photo, 647 F.3d at 1227 (explaining that the Zippo sliding-scale approach, the primary test for assessing jurisdiction from a website, 'should be of little value in a general jurisdiction analysis" (quoting 4A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. | 2 | 2 |
Revell v. Lidovgreen2 sentences2015Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1073.1, at 331 (3d ed. 2002))); Revell U. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 471 (5th Cir. 2002) (Zippo test "is not well adapted to the general jurisdiction inquiry, because even repeated contacts with forum residents by a foreign defendant may not constitute the requisite substantial, continuous and systematic contacts required for a finding of general jurisdiction"); Cybersell, 130 F.3d at 418 . 2015Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1073.1, at 331 (3d ed. 2002))); Revell U. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 471 (5th Cir. 2002) (Zippo test "is not well adapted to the general jurisdiction inquiry, because even repeated contacts with forum residents by a foreign defendant may not constitute the requisite substantial, continuous and systematic contacts required for a finding of general jurisdiction"); Cybersell, 130 F.3d at 418 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1073.1, at 331 (3d ed. 2002))); Revell U. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 471 (5th Cir. 2002) (Zippo test "is not well adapted to the general jurisdiction inquiry, because even repeated contacts with forum residents by a foreign defendant may not constitute the requisite substantial, continuous and systematic contacts required for a finding of general jurisdiction"); Cybersell, 130 F.3d at 418 . 2015Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1073.1, at 331 (3d ed. 2002))); Revell U. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 471 (5th Cir. 2002) (Zippo test "is not well adapted to the general jurisdiction inquiry, because even repeated contacts with forum residents by a foreign defendant may not constitute the requisite substantial, continuous and systematic contacts required for a finding of general jurisdiction"); Cybersell, 130 F.3d at 418 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
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.