4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from DirecTV Latin America, LLC v. PARK 610, LLC.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DirecTV Latin America, LLC v. PARK 610, LLC Anchor | green | “new york courts and the second circuit have consistently interpreted 302(a)(2) jurisdiction narrowly and have held that to qualify for jurisdiction under this subsection, a defendant's act or omission must have occurred within the state.” | 5 |
| 2 | Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc. | green | “cover only a tortious act committed (by a nondomiciliary) in this state.” | 5 |
| 3 | John J. Fox v. Alfred G. Boucher | green | “in contrast to the conflicting authority in the state courts, the federal cases construing 302(a)(2) ... have uniformly held that jurisdiction under the section cannot be predicated on telephone calls made or letters mailed into this state” | 4 |
| 4 | Roth v. El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. | green | “section 302(a)(2) requires that the tort be committed in new york and defendant must actually be in new york when the tort is committed” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.