Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 17 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 Bombliss v. Cornelsen.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bombliss v. Cornelsen Anchor | green | “the type of internet activity that is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction remains an emerging area of jurisprudence.” | 4 |
| 2 | Jago v. Miller Fluid Power Corp. | green | “the parties to a contract may incorporate by reference another document if that intention is clearly shown on the face of the contract.” | 4 |
| 3 | Bombliss v. Cornelsen | green | “has established that the defendant purposely directed his activities at the forum state, it is the defendant's burden to show that litigating the dispute in this state would be unreasonable.” | 3 |
| 4 | Levin v. Posen Foundation | green | “must consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” | 3 |
| 5 | Monco v. Zoltek Corp. | green | “email communications directed at plaintiff in illinois related to the fraud, combined with plaintiffs' injury in illinois, established specific personal jurisdiction.” | 3 |
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.