7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee
green
2 sentences2024“The personal jurisdiction requirement . . . represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty.” Id. 2024“The personal jurisdiction requirement . . . represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty.” Id. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Shaffer v. Heitner
green
2 sentences2011Indeed, “when claims to the property itself are the source of the underlying controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant, it would be unusual for the State where the property is located not to have jurisdiction.” Id. 2007Indeed, “when claims to the property itself are the source of the underlying controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant, it would be unusual for the State where the property is located not to have jurisdiction.” Id. | 2 | 2007–2011 |
Androutsos v. Fairfax Hospital
green
2 sentences2015Androutsos v. Fairfax Hospital, 323 Md. 634, 638-39 , 594 A.2d 574 (1991). 2015Androutsos v. Fairfax Hospital, 323 Md. 634, 638-39 , 594 A.2d 574 (1991). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Realtime Gaming Holding Co., LLC
green
2 sentences2012We shall examine each of the three factors set forth by the Court of Appeals in Beyond Sys., Inc., 388 Md. at 26 , 878 A.2d 567 . (i) Purposeful Availment As to the first prong of the specific personal jurisdiction analysis set forth by the Court of Appeals in Beyond Sys., Inc., the record in the instant case reflects that Fadul-—a Virginia resident, representing himself, Dynacorp, and Vital-Tel—entered into a contract, the April Operating Agreement, in Maryland, with Salkini—a Maryland resident, who represented Aramtel and TWS. 2012We shall examine each of the three factors set forth by the Court of Appeals in Beyond Sys., Inc., 388 Md. at 26 , 878 A.2d 567 . (i) Purposeful Availment As to the first prong of the specific personal jurisdiction analysis set forth by the Court of Appeals in Beyond Sys., Inc., the record in the instant case reflects that Fadul-—a Virginia resident, representing himself, Dynacorp, and Vital-Tel—entered into a contract, the April Operating Agreement, in Maryland, with Salkini—a Maryland resident, who represented Aramtel and TWS. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
green
2 sentences2012In Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), the Supreme Court described why purposeful availment is important to a personal jurisdiction analysis, stating: T[he] “purposeful availment” requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts, or of the “unilateral activity of another party of a third person[.]” Jurisdiction is proper, however, where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant [itjself that create a “substantial connect 2012In Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), the Supreme Court described why purposeful availment is important to a personal jurisdiction analysis, stating: T[he] “purposeful availment” requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts, or of the “unilateral activity of another party of a third person[.]” Jurisdiction is proper, however, where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant [itjself that create a “substantial connect | 1 | 2012–2012 |
McGee v. International Life Insurance
green
2 sentences1986Co., 355 U.S. 220 , 78 S.Ct. 199 , 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957). 1986Co., 355 U.S. 220 , 78 S.Ct. 199 , 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.