general jurisdiction rule (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

general jurisdiction rule in California

6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2024 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Turringreen
calctapp · 2009 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2024
2 sentences

2024(Torres, at pp. 1084-1085; People v. Fuimaono, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 135 ; People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1208 , citing § 1237, subd. (b).) There are statutory exceptions to the general jurisdiction rule precluding resentencing (see, e.g., §§ 1170.126, 1170.18, 1172.6), and courts may correct computational and clerical errors at any time.

2024(Torres, at pp. 1084-1085; People v. Fuimaono, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 135 ; People v. Turrin, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1208 , citing § 1237, subd. (b).) There are statutory exceptions to the general jurisdiction rule precluding resentencing (see, e.g., §§ 1170.126, 1170.18, 1172.6), and the courts may correct computational and clerical errors at any time.

13
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Browngreen
scotus · 2011 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2023
2 sentences

2023(Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 924 .) A defendant corporation’s substantial sales in a state are insufficient to establish general jurisdiction, as the general jurisdiction analysis turns on the nature of the defendant’s continuous corporate operations within a state.

2016(Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 924 [ 180 L.Ed.2d 796 , 131 S.Ct. 2846 ] (Goodyear).) A defendant corporation’s substantial sales in a state are insufficient to establish general jurisdiction, as *223 the general jurisdiction analysis turns on the nature of the defendant’s continuous corporate operations within a state.

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Fuimaono green
calctapp5d · 2019
2 sentences

2024(Torres, at pp. 1084-1085; People v. Fuimaono, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 135 ; People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1208 , citing § 1237, subd. (b).) There are statutory exceptions to the general jurisdiction rule precluding resentencing (see, e.g., §§ 1170.126, 1170.18, 1172.6), and courts may correct computational and clerical errors at any time.

2024(Torres, at pp. 1084-1085; People v. Fuimaono, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 135 ; People v. Turrin, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1208 , citing § 1237, subd. (b).) There are statutory exceptions to the general jurisdiction rule precluding resentencing (see, e.g., §§ 1170.126, 1170.18, 1172.6), and the courts may correct computational and clerical errors at any time.

32022–2024
People v. Huff green
calctapp · 1975
2 sentences

2018Code, § 1506 ); and (3) if an appeal is taken and a request for stay is *391 denied or no request for stay is made, then the appeal has no effect on the *776 order unless and until the order is reversed . [Citations.] At bench the case falls into the latter category." ( Huff , supra , 46 Cal.App.3d at p. 365 , 120 Cal.Rptr. 210 , italics added.) The court then denied the motion to dismiss the appeal and proceeded to the merits, affirming the habeas order. ( Id. at pp. 364-367, 120 Cal.Rptr. 210 .) Considering Huff and the foregoing statutory analysis, we interpret the operative language of sec

2018Code, § 1506 ); and (3) if an appeal is taken and a request for stay is *391 denied or no request for stay is made, then the appeal has no effect on the *776 order unless and until the order is reversed . [Citations.] At bench the case falls into the latter category." ( Huff , supra , 46 Cal.App.3d at p. 365 , 120 Cal.Rptr. 210 , italics added.) The court then denied the motion to dismiss the appeal and proceeded to the merits, affirming the habeas order. ( Id. at pp. 364-367, 120 Cal.Rptr. 210 .) Considering Huff and the foregoing statutory analysis, we interpret the operative language of sec

12018–2018
Daimler AG v. Bauman green
scotus · 2014
1 sentence

2016(Daimler, at p. _ [ 134 S.Ct. at p. 761 ].) However, even if a defendant lacks sufficient direct contacts with a forum to establish general jurisdiction, a plaintiff may impute the minimum contacts of a California subsidiary to a nonresident parent through theories of alter ego or agency.

12016–2016

Where else courts name it

TX 92 (1994–2025) TN 8 (2009–2016) NV 8 (2015–2015) CA 6 (2016–2024) NJ 5 (2007–2017) MT 4 (2016–2017) NC 4 (2011–2018) WA 3 (1991–2001) NY 3 (2015–2025) IN 2 (1999–2008) IA 2 (2015–2015) KS 2 (2002–2006) LA 2 (2020–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check