6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shah v. Shahgreen2 sentences2021See Fox v. Fox, 2014 VT 100, ¶ 30 , 197 Vt. 466 , 106 A.3d 919 (concluding that Vermont trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter protective order because “defendant did not avail himself of any benefits or protections of Vermont's laws, or subject himself to the authority of Vermont's courts”); Shah v. Shah, 184 N.J. 125, 139 , 875 A.2d 931, 940 (2005) (concluding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over a defendant who “has not ‘purposefully availed’ himself of the laws of New Jersey”). ¶ 23 Indeed, under similar circumstances, a Florida intermediate appellate court con 2021See Fox v. Fox, 2014 VT 100, ¶ 30 , 197 Vt. 466 , 106 A.3d 919 (concluding that Vermont trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter protective order because “defendant did not avail himself of any benefits or protections of Vermont's laws, or subject himself to the authority of Vermont's courts”); Shah v. Shah, 184 N.J. 125, 139 , 875 A.2d 931, 940 (2005) (concluding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over a defendant who “has not ‘purposefully availed’ himself of the laws of New Jersey”). ¶ 23 Indeed, under similar circumstances, a Florida intermediate appellate court con | 2 | 2 |
Becker v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2021See Fox v. Fox, 2014 VT 100, ¶ 30 , 197 Vt. 466 , 106 A.3d 919 (concluding that Vermont trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter protective order because “defendant did not avail himself of any benefits or protections of Vermont's laws, or subject himself to the authority of Vermont's courts”); Shah v. Shah, 184 N.J. 125, 139 , 875 A.2d 931, 940 (2005) (concluding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over a defendant who “has not ‘purposefully availed’ himself of the laws of New Jersey”). ¶ 23 Indeed, under similar circumstances, a Florida intermediate appellate court con 2021See Fox v. Fox, 2014 VT 100, ¶ 30 , 197 Vt. 466 , 106 A.3d 919 (concluding that Vermont trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter protective order because “defendant did not avail himself of any benefits or protections of Vermont's laws, or subject himself to the authority of Vermont's courts”); Shah v. Shah, 184 N.J. 125, 139 , 875 A.2d 931, 940 (2005) (concluding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over a defendant who “has not ‘purposefully availed’ himself of the laws of New Jersey”). ¶ 23 Indeed, under similar circumstances, a Florida intermediate appellate court con | 2 | 2 |
Fox v. Foxgreen2 sentences2021See Fox v. Fox, 2014 VT 100, ¶ 30 , 197 Vt. 466 , 106 A.3d 919 (concluding that Vermont trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter protective order because “defendant did not avail himself of any benefits or protections of Vermont's laws, or subject himself to the authority of Vermont's courts”); Shah v. Shah, 184 N.J. 125, 139 , 875 A.2d 931, 940 (2005) (concluding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over a defendant who “has not ‘purposefully availed’ himself of the laws of New Jersey”). ¶ 23 Indeed, under similar circumstances, a Florida intermediate appellate court con 2021See Fox v. Fox, 2014 VT 100, ¶ 30 , 197 Vt. 466 , 106 A.3d 919 (concluding that Vermont trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter protective order because “defendant did not avail himself of any benefits or protections of Vermont's laws, or subject himself to the authority of Vermont's courts”); Shah v. Shah, 184 N.J. 125, 139 , 875 A.2d 931, 940 (2005) (concluding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over a defendant who “has not ‘purposefully availed’ himself of the laws of New Jersey”). ¶ 23 Indeed, under similar circumstances, a Florida intermediate appellate court con | 2 | 2 |
Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San Franciscogreen1 sentence2023Ct., 436 U.S. 84, 96 (1978))). 6 In framing the California-directed activities as the only relevant events in the purposeful availment analysis, Defendants ignore their North Carolina-directed activities, brushing them off as irrelevant because they occurred after the employment relationship initially formed. | 1 | 1 |
Walden v. Fioregreen1 sentence2023The crux of the purposeful availment analysis is whether a defendant “ ‘reached out beyond’ its home—by, for example, ‘exploit[ing] a market’ in the forum State or entering a contractual relationship centered there.” Ford Motor Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1025 (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014)). | 1 | 1 |
Universal Leather, LLC v. KORO AR, S.A.green1 sentence2023Universal Leather, LLC v. Koro AR, S.A., 773 F.3d 553, 560 (4th Cir. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Tom Togs, Inc. v. Ben Elias Industries Corp.green2 sentences2009See, e.g., Tom Togs, 318 N.C. at 367 , 348 S.E.2d at 787 (defendant’s awareness “that the contract was going to be substantially performed in this State” was relevant to whether defendant purposefully availed itself of state’s benefits). 2009See, e.g., Tom Togs, 318 N.C. at 367 , 348 S.E.2d at 787 (defendant’s awareness “that the contract was going to be substantially performed in this State” was relevant to whether defendant purposefully availed itself of state’s benefits). | 1 | 1 |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewiczgreen2 sentences2008App. 376, 381 , 581 S.E.2d 798, 802 , rev’d on other grounds by, 357 N.C. 651 , 588 S.E.2d 465 (2003) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 , 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2183 , 85 L. 2008App. 376, 381 , 581 S.E.2d 798, 802 , rev’d on other grounds by, 357 N.C. 651 , 588 S.E.2d 465 (2003) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 , 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2183 , 85 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adams Kleemeier Hagan Hannah & Fouts, PLLC v. Jacobs
neutral
2 sentences2009App. 376, 381 , 581 S.E.2d 798, 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 357 N.C. 651 , 588 S.E.2d 465 (2003) (quotation omitted). 2009App. 376, 381 , 581 S.E.2d 798, 802 , rev’d on other grounds, 357 N.C. 651 , 588 S.E.2d 465 (2003) (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2008–2009 |
Adams, Kleemeier, Hagan, Hannah & Fouts, PLLC v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences2009“The purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or unilateral *59 activity of another party or a third person.” Adams, Kleemeier, Hagan, Hannah & Fonts, PLLC v. Jacobs, 158 N.C. 2008“The purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” Adams, KLeemeier, Hagan, Hannah & Fouts, PLLC v. Jacobs, 158 N.C. | 2 | 2008–2009 |
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.
green
1 sentence2023For example, as part of their purposeful availment analysis, they assert that “[w]ithout soliciting a relationship with a North Carolina resident and the forum itself, there is no connection between the contracts at issue and this forum.” At this point in the analysis, however, the task is to evaluate “the nature and extent of ‘the defendant’s relationship to the forum State.’ ” Ford Motor Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1024 (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 582 U.S. at 262 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist.
green
2 sentences2023The crux of the purposeful availment analysis is whether a defendant “ ‘reached out beyond’ its home—by, for example, ‘exploit[ing] a market’ in the forum State or entering a contractual relationship centered there.” Ford Motor Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1025 (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014)). 2023For example, as part of their purposeful availment analysis, they assert that “[w]ithout soliciting a relationship with a North Carolina resident and the forum itself, there is no connection between the contracts at issue and this forum.” At this point in the analysis, however, the task is to evaluate “the nature and extent of ‘the defendant’s relationship to the forum State.’ ” Ford Motor Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1024 (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 582 U.S. at 262 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.