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.
27 canonical passages across 19 cases, quoted by 14,119 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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | International Shoe Co. v. Washington Anchor | green | “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” | 5,837 |
| 2 | World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson | green | “the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” | 1,671 |
| 3 | Hanson v. Denckla | green | “it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” | 1,569 |
| 4 | Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown | green | “a court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the state are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum state.” | 795 |
| 5 | Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz | green | “must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” | 492 |
| 6 | Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz | green | “prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties' actual course of dealing.” | 371 |
| 7 | Walden v. Fiore | green | “looks to the defendant's contacts with the forum state itself, not the defendant's contacts with persons who reside there.” | 369 |
| 8 | Walden v. Fiore | green | “for a state to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum state.” | 315 |
| 9 | Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz | green | “the due process clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful 'contacts, ties, or relations.” | 288 |
| 10 | Shaffer v. Heitner | green | “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” | 284 |
| 11 | World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson | green | “the forum state does not exceed its powers under the due process clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state.” | 273 |
| 12 | Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. | green | “the placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state.” | 251 |
| 13 | Daimler AG v. Bauman | green | “so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that state.” | 217 |
| 14 | Hanson v. Denckla | green | “the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state.” | 213 |
| 15 | Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. | green | “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” | 182 |
| 16 | Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall | green | “continuous and systematic general business contacts” | 175 |
| 17 | Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. | green | “designing the product for the market in the forum state, advertising in the forum state, establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum state, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum sta…” | 162 |
| 18 | Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall | green | “unilateral activity of another party or a third person is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum state to justify an assertion of jurisdiction.” | 155 |
| 19 | Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty. | green | “a court with general jurisdiction may hear any claim against that defendant, even if all the incidents underlying the claim occurred in a different state.” | 124 |
| 20 | Milliken v. Meyer | green | “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” | 93 |
| 21 | Rollins v. Ellwood | green | “jurisdiction is to be asserted only when it is fair, just, and reasonable to require a nonresident defendant to defend an action in illinois, considering the quality and nature of the defendant's acts which occur in illinois or which affect interests located in illinois.” | 88 |
| 22 | J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro | green | “the defendant's transmission of goods permits the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant can be said to have targeted the forum; as a general rule, it is not enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum state.” | 87 |
| 23 | Omi Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Insurance Company Of Canada | green | “states have an important interest in providing a forum in which their residents can seek redress for injuries caused by out-of-state actors.” | 32 |
| 24 | Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc. | green | “a district court sitting in diversity may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the extent allowed under the law of the forum state.” | 28 |
| 25 | Panavision International, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership v. Dennis Toeppen Network Solutions, Inc., a District of Columbia Corporation | green | “no longer weighed heavily given the modern advances in communication and transportation.” | 24 |
| 26 | Roth v. Garcia Marquez | green | “the jurisdictional inquiries under state law and federal due process merge into one analysis” | 13 |
| 27 | Rar, Incorporated, an Illinois Corporation v. Turner Diesel, Limited | green | “individuals and corporations must be able to conduct interstate business confident that transactions in one context will not come back to haunt them unexpectedly in another.” | 11 |
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.