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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 10 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 Choice Healthcare, Inc. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Choice Healthcare, Inc. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Anchor | green | “the 'purposeful availment' element ensures that a defendant will not be haled into court in a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or the unilateral activity of another person or third party.” | 5 |
| 2 | Point Landing, Inc. v. Omni Capital International, Ltd. | green | “absent a rule or statute to the contrary, ... a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over only those defendants who are subject to the jurisdiction of courts of the state in which the court sits.” | 5 |
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.