8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dickson Marine Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc.green2 sentences2016The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has pointed out that ―[u]nlike the specific jurisdiction analysis, which focuses on the cause of action, the defendant and the forum, a general jurisdiction inquiry is dispute blind, the sole focus being on whether there are continuous and systematic contact between the defendant and the forum.‖ Dickson Marine, Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir.1999). 2015General jurisdiction, unlike specific jurisdiction, “may be proper even when the cause of action does not arise out of the defendant’s activities in the forum state.” Sumatra, 403 S.W.3d at 744 ; see also Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 648 (“ ‘[U]nlike the specific jurisdiction analysis, which focuses on the cause of action, the defendant and the forum, a general jurisdiction inquiry is dispute blind.”’) (quoting Dickson Marine, Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir.1999)). | 8 | 8 |
Gordon v. Greenview Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2015General jurisdiction, unlike specific jurisdiction, “may be proper even when the cause of action does not arise out of the defendant’s activities in the forum state.” Sumatra, 403 S.W.3d at 744 ; see also Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 648 (“ ‘[U]nlike the specific jurisdiction analysis, which focuses on the cause of action, the defendant and the forum, a general jurisdiction inquiry is dispute blind.”’) (quoting Dickson Marine, Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir.1999)). 2015General jurisdiction, unlike specific jurisdiction, ―may be proper even when the cause of action does not arise out of the defendant‘s activities in the forum state.‖ Sumatra, 403 S.W.3d at 744 ; see also Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 648 (‗―[U]nlike the specific jurisdiction analysis, which focuses on the cause of action, the defendant and the forum, a general jurisdiction inquiry is dispute blind.‖‘) (quoting Dickson Marine, Inc., v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir. 1999)). ―With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are ‗paradig[m] . . . ba | 2 | 2 |
Daimler AG v. Baumangreen2 sentences2015General jurisdiction, unlike specific jurisdiction, ―may be proper even when the cause of action does not arise out of the defendant‘s activities in the forum state.‖ Sumatra, 403 S.W.3d at 744 ; see also Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 648 (‗―[U]nlike the specific jurisdiction analysis, which focuses on the cause of action, the defendant and the forum, a general jurisdiction inquiry is dispute blind.‖‘) (quoting Dickson Marine, Inc., v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir. 1999)). ―With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are ‗paradig[m] . . . ba 2015General jurisdiction, unlike specific jurisdiction, ―may be proper even when the cause of action does not arise out of the defendant‘s activities in the forum state.‖ Sumatra, 403 S.W.3d at 744 ; see also Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 648 (‗―[U]nlike the specific jurisdiction analysis, which focuses on the cause of action, the defendant and the forum, a general jurisdiction inquiry is dispute blind.‖‘) (quoting Dickson Marine, Inc., v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir. 1999)). ―With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are ‗paradig[m] . . . ba | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Tennessee v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company
green
2 sentences2015General jurisdiction, unlike specific jurisdiction, “may be proper even when the cause of action does not arise out of the defendant’s activities in the forum state.” Sumatra, 403 S.W.3d at 744 ; see also Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 648 (“ ‘[U]nlike the specific jurisdiction analysis, which focuses on the cause of action, the defendant and the forum, a general jurisdiction inquiry is dispute blind.”’) (quoting Dickson Marine, Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir.1999)). 2015General jurisdiction, unlike specific jurisdiction, ―may be proper even when the cause of action does not arise out of the defendant‘s activities in the forum state.‖ Sumatra, 403 S.W.3d at 744 ; see also Gordon, 300 S.W.3d at 648 (‗―[U]nlike the specific jurisdiction analysis, which focuses on the cause of action, the defendant and the forum, a general jurisdiction inquiry is dispute blind.‖‘) (quoting Dickson Marine, Inc., v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir. 1999)). ―With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are ‗paradig[m] . . . ba | 2 | 2015–2015 |
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
green
1 sentence2013In order to warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, “the defendant must be engaged in longstanding business in the forum state, such as marketing or shipping products, or performing services or maintaining one or more offices there; activities that are less extensive than that will not qualify for general in personam jurisdiction.” 4 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1067.5, at 507. -5- The proper analysis for determining whether a defendant’s contacts are “continuous and systematic” enough to warrant an assertion of general jurisdiction requires ascertaining | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lindsey v. Trinity Communications, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013In order to warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, “the defendant must be engaged in longstanding business in the forum state, such as marketing or shipping products, or performing services or maintaining one or more offices there; activities that are less extensive than that will not qualify for general in personam jurisdiction.” 4 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1067.5, at 507. -5- The proper analysis for determining whether a defendant’s contacts are “continuous and systematic” enough to warrant an assertion of general jurisdiction requires ascertaining | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.