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 5 cases, quoted by 51 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 Sherwin Brook v. J. McCormley.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sherwin Brook v. J. McCormley Anchor | green | “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” | 23 |
| 2 | Central States, Southeast And Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Phencorp Reinsurance Company, Inc. | green | “once the defendant has submitted affidavits or other evidence in opposition to the exercise of jurisdiction, the plaintiff must go beyond the pleadings and submit affirmative evidence supporting the exercise of jurisdiction.” | 13 |
| 3 | Ariel Investments, LLC v. Ariel Capital Advisors LLC | green | “knowing about a potential for harm in a particular state is not the same as acting in that state-and it takes the latter to permit personal jurisdiction under state law.” | 8 |
| 4 | Philos Technologies, Inc. v. Philos & D, Inc. | green | “illinois extends personal jurisdiction to the limits allowed by the united states constitution, so the state and federal standards are congruent here.” | 4 |
| 5 | Solargenix Energy, LLC v. Acciona | green | “specific jurisdiction (i.e., sufficient minimum purposeful contacts with illinois and the dispute arose out of those contacts)” | 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.