(a) The term “person” in this section includes any natural person, association, partnership or corporation.
(b) The following acts constitute legal presence within the State. Any person who commits any of the acts hereinafter enumerated thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the Delaware courts.
(c) As to a cause of action brought by any person arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident, or a personal representative, who in person or through an agent:
(1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State;
(2) Contracts to supply services or things in this State;
(3) Causes tortious injury in the State by an act or omission in this State;
(4) Causes tortious injury in the State or outside of the State by an act or omission outside the State if the person regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct in the State or derives substantial revenue from services, or things used or consumed in the State;
(5) Has an interest in, uses or possesses real property in the State; or
(6) Contracts to insure or act as surety for, or on, any person, property, risk, contract, obligation or agreement located, executed or to be performed within the State at the time the contract is made, unless the parties otherwise provide in writing.
(d) When the law of this State authorizes service of process outside the State, the service, when reasonably calculated to give actual notice, may be made:
(1) By personal delivery in the manner prescribed for service within this State.
(2) In the manner provided or prescribed by the law of the place in which the service is made for service in that place in an action in any of its courts of general jurisdiction.
(3) By any form of mail addressed to the person to be served and requiring a signed receipt.
(4) As directed by a court.
(e) Proof of service outside this State may be made by affidavit of the individual who made the service or in the manner provided or prescribed by the law of this State, the order pursuant to which the service is made, or the law of the place in which the service is made for proof of service in an action in any of its courts of general jurisdiction. When service is made by mail, proof of service shall include a receipt signed by the addressee or other evidence of personal delivery to the addressee satisfactory to the court.
(f) Service outside this State may be made by an individual permitted to make service of process under the law of this State or under the law of the place in which the service is made or who is designated by a court of this State.
(g) If service is made pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the time in which defendant shall serve an answer shall be computed from the date of the mailing which is the subject of the return receipt or other official proof of delivery or the notation of refusal of delivery; provided, however, that the court in which the action is pending may, at any time before or after the expiration of the prescribed time for answering, order such continuances as may be necessary to afford the defendant therein reasonable opportunity to defend the action.
(h) (1) Proof of the defendant’s nonresidence and of the mailing and receipt or refusal of the notice shall be made in such manner as the court, by rule or otherwise, shall direct.
(2) The return receipt or other official proof of delivery shall constitute presumptive evidence that the notice mailed was received by the defendant or the defendant’s agent; and the notation of refusal shall constitute presumptive evidence that the refusal was by the defendant or the defendant’s agent.
(i) Nothing herein contained limits or effects the rights to serve process in any other manner now or hereafter provided by law. This section is an extension of and not a limitation upon the rights otherwise existing of service of legal process upon nonresidents.
(j) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a cause of action arising from any act enumerated in this section may be asserted against the person.
(k) This section does not invalidate any other section of the Code that provides for service of summons on nonresidents. This section applies only to the extent that the other statutes that already grant personal jurisdiction over nonresidents do not cover any of the acts enumerated in this section.
(l) In any cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, the court may provide for a stay or dismissal of action if the court finds, in the interest of justice, that the action should be heard in another forum.
11 Del. Laws, c. 192;
Code 1915,
§
4088;
Code 1935,
§
4579;
10 Del. C. 1953,
§
3104;
61 Del. Laws, c. 471,
§
1;
64 Del. Laws, c. 52,
§
1;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
76 Del. Laws, c. 329,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123 (Del. 2016).
· cites it 7× “Under the long-arm statute, a foreign corporation ―submits to the jurisdiction of the Delaware courts‖ as to any cause of action that arises out of certain enumerated acts by the corporation in this state such as ―transact[ing] any business or perform[ing] any character of work…”
Round Rock Rsch. LLC v. Asustek Comput. Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 969 (D. Del. 2013).
· cites it 4× “See 10 Del. C. § 3104. The due process analysis, in a patent case such as this, must follow decisions of the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Sears Plc, 744 F. Supp. 1289 (D. Del. 1990).
· cites it 6× “The Delaware Long-Arm Statute Roebuck contends that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over SFSL under either of two subsections of the Delaware Long-Arm Statute, 10 Del.C. § 3104(c)(1) or 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(3).”
MIG Investments LLC v. Aetrex Worldwide, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 493 (D. Del. 2012).
· cites it 5× “First, Aetrex relies on the Delaware long-arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104(c). (D.I. 21 at 4) Alternatively, Aetrex relies on the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction.”
Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., 167 F. Supp. 2d 692 (D. Del. 2001).
· cites it 3× “First, the court must examine whether the language of the Delaware long-arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104(c), reaches the defendant.”
Phunware, Inc. v. Excelmind Grp. Ltd., 117 F. Supp. 3d 613 (D. Del. 2015).
· cites it 3× “§ 3104(c)(1) — (4), a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant when the defendant or its agent: (1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State; (2) Contracts to supply services or things in this State (3) Causes tortious…”
Resource Ventures, Inc. v. Resources Mgmt. Int'l, Inc., 42 F. Supp. 2d 423 (D. Del. 1999).
· cites it 3× “The statute further provides in relevant part: (c) As to a cause of action brought by any person arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident, or a personal representative, who in person or through an…”
Kloth v. S. Christian Univ., 320 F. App'x 113 (3rd Cir. 2008).
· cites it 3× “First, the court considers whether service was authorized by statute, in this case under Delaware’s long-arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104. 1 IMO Indus., 155 F.3d at 258-59 .”
Bernstein v. IDT Corp., 582 F. Supp. 1079 (D. Del. 1984).
· cites it 3× “The plaintiff has shown that facts might be developed through discovery which would bring this case within 10 Del.C. § 3104(c)(1) and would make an assertion of jurisdiction over the Veliotis’ consistent with the due process clause.”
Intel Corp. v. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Del. 1998).
· cites it 5× “10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(1), (3), (4). Intel argues that the court may find jurisdiction under these three subsections of the Delaware long-arm statute.”
Registered Agents, Ltd. v. Registered Agents, Ltd., 880 F. Supp. 2d 541 (D. Del. 2012).
· cites it 6× “Therefore, even broadly construing 10 Del. C. § 3104(c) as “[conferring] jurisdiction to the maximum extent possible under the due process clause[,]” plaintiff has failed to bring defendant within reach of Delaware’s personal jurisdiction.”
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(0)(1) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(0)(3) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(a) — 3 cases
Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123 (Del. 2016).
“Under the long-arm statute, a foreign corporation ―submits to the jurisdiction of the Delaware courts‖ as to any cause of action that arises out of certain enumerated acts by the corporation in this state such as ―transact[ing] any business or perform[ing] any character of work…”
Resource Ventures, Inc. v. Resources Mgmt. Int'l, Inc., 42 F. Supp. 2d 423 (D. Del. 1999).
“The statute further provides in relevant part: (c) As to a cause of action brought by any person arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident, or a personal representative, who in person or through an…”
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(b) — 4 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(c) — 125 cases
Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., 167 F. Supp. 2d 692 (D. Del. 2001).
“First, the court must examine whether the language of the Delaware long-arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104(c), reaches the defendant.”
Resource Ventures, Inc. v. Resources Mgmt. Int'l, Inc., 42 F. Supp. 2d 423 (D. Del. 1999).
“The statute further provides in relevant part: (c) As to a cause of action brought by any person arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident, or a personal representative, who in person or through an…”
Kloth v. S. Christian Univ., 320 F. App'x 113 (3rd Cir. 2008).
“First, the court considers whether service was authorized by statute, in this case under Delaware’s long-arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104. 1 IMO Indus., 155 F.3d at 258-59 .”
MIG Investments LLC v. Aetrex Worldwide, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 493 (D. Del. 2012).
“First, Aetrex relies on the Delaware long-arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104(c). (D.I. 21 at 4) Alternatively, Aetrex relies on the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction.”
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(1) — 88 cases
Phunware, Inc. v. Excelmind Grp. Ltd., 117 F. Supp. 3d 613 (D. Del. 2015).
“§ 3104(c)(1) — (4), a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant when the defendant or its agent: (1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State; (2) Contracts to supply services or things in this State (3) Causes tortious…”
Bernstein v. IDT Corp., 582 F. Supp. 1079 (D. Del. 1984).
“The plaintiff has shown that facts might be developed through discovery which would bring this case within 10 Del.C. § 3104(c)(1) and would make an assertion of jurisdiction over the Veliotis’ consistent with the due process clause.”
Registered Agents, Ltd. v. Registered Agents, Ltd., 880 F. Supp. 2d 541 (D. Del. 2012).
“Therefore, even broadly construing 10 Del. C. § 3104(c) as “[conferring] jurisdiction to the maximum extent possible under the due process clause[,]” plaintiff has failed to bring defendant within reach of Delaware’s personal jurisdiction.”
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(2) — 5 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(2003) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(3) — 27 cases
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Sears Plc, 744 F. Supp. 1289 (D. Del. 1990).
“The Delaware Long-Arm Statute Roebuck contends that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over SFSL under either of two subsections of the Delaware Long-Arm Statute, 10 Del.C. § 3104(c)(1) or 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(3).”
MIG Investments LLC v. Aetrex Worldwide, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 493 (D. Del. 2012).
“First, Aetrex relies on the Delaware long-arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104(c). (D.I. 21 at 4) Alternatively, Aetrex relies on the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction.”
Intel Corp. v. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Del. 1998).
“10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(1), (3), (4). Intel argues that the court may find jurisdiction under these three subsections of the Delaware long-arm statute.”
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(4) — 29 cases
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Sears Plc, 744 F. Supp. 1289 (D. Del. 1990).
“The Delaware Long-Arm Statute Roebuck contends that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over SFSL under either of two subsections of the Delaware Long-Arm Statute, 10 Del.C. § 3104(c)(1) or 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(3).”
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(5) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(6) — 8 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(l) — 10 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(d) — 10 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(d)(2) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(d)(3) — 7 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(d)(4) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(e) — 7 cases
Intel Corp. v. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Del. 1998).
“10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(1), (3), (4). Intel argues that the court may find jurisdiction under these three subsections of the Delaware long-arm statute.”
Registered Agents, Ltd. v. Registered Agents, Ltd., 880 F. Supp. 2d 541 (D. Del. 2012).
“Therefore, even broadly construing 10 Del. C. § 3104(c) as “[conferring] jurisdiction to the maximum extent possible under the due process clause[,]” plaintiff has failed to bring defendant within reach of Delaware’s personal jurisdiction.”
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(e)(1) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(e)(3) — 3 cases
Intel Corp. v. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Del. 1998).
“10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(1), (3), (4). Intel argues that the court may find jurisdiction under these three subsections of the Delaware long-arm statute.”
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(e)(l) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(f) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(g) — 2 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(h)(2) — 2 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(h)(3) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(j) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 3104(k) — 1 case
Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, 137 A.3d 123 (Del. 2016).
“Under the long-arm statute, a foreign corporation ―submits to the jurisdiction of the Delaware courts‖ as to any cause of action that arises out of certain enumerated acts by the corporation in this state such as ―transact[ing] any business or perform[ing] any character of work…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.