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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 8 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 Schaadt v. T. W. Kutter, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Schaadt v. T. W. Kutter, Inc. Anchor | green | “it is not enough that a defendant foresaw the possibility that its product would find its way here; foreseeability must be coupled with evidence of a purposeful new york affiliation, for example, a discernible effort to directly or indirectly serve the new york market.” | 4 |
| 2 | Allen v. Auto Specialties Mfg. Co. | green | “the test of whether a defendant expects or should reasonably expect his act to have consequences within the state is an objective rather than subjective one.” | 2 |
| 3 | Schaadt v. T. W. Kutter, Inc. | green | “foreseeability must be coupled with evidence of a purposeful new york affiliation, for example, a discernible effort to directly or indirectly serve the new york market” | 2 |
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.