6 Mississippi opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dorothy Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corporationgreen1 sentence2022The court stated “this Circuit has consistently followed a ‘stream-of-commerce’ approach to personal jurisdiction, under which the minimum contacts requirement is met so long as the court ‘finds that the defendant delivered the product into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would be purchased by or used by consumers in the forum state.’” Id. at 176 (quoting Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370, 374 (5th Cir.1987) . | 1 | 1 |
Petters v. Pettersgreen1 sentence1990The Texas court correctly observed that the personal jurisdiction standards of the FUSFSPA are more restrictive than the familiar minimum contacts standard, see, e.g., Petters v. Petters, 560 So.2d 722, 725 (Miss. 1990); Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Galbraith & Dickens, Etc. v. Gulf Coast, Etc.
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 21-23 . ¶ 31. 2002Id. at 21-23 . ¶31. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Mary Ainsworth v. Cargotec USA, Incorporated
green
1 sentence2022The court stated “this Circuit has consistently followed a ‘stream-of-commerce’ approach to personal jurisdiction, under which the minimum contacts requirement is met so long as the court ‘finds that the defendant delivered the product into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would be purchased by or used by consumers in the forum state.’” Id. at 176 (quoting Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370, 374 (5th Cir.1987) . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
green
1 sentence1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences1990The Texas court correctly observed that the personal jurisdiction standards of the FUSFSPA are more restrictive than the familiar minimum contacts standard, see, e.g., Petters v. Petters, 560 So.2d 722, 725 (Miss. 1990); Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). 1990The Texas court correctly observed that the personal jurisdiction standards of the FUSFSPA are more restrictive than the familiar minimum contacts standard, see, e.g., Petters v. Petters, 560 So.2d 722, 725 (Miss. 1990); Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Shaffer v. Heitner
green
2 sentences1984Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. at 207-208 , 53 L.Ed.2d at 700 . 1984Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. at 207-208 , 53 L.Ed.2d at 700 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.