Minimum Contacts

1,630 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 103 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Waite v. ALL Acquisition Corp.
  901 F.3d 1307· 11th Cir.· 2018-08-23 ·cited 43×
  James Waite was exposed to asbestos mined and sold by Union Carbide while living in Massachusetts, and later developed mesothelioma after moving to Florida. The Waites sued Union Carbide in Florida state court for negligent failure to warn and defective design. The Eleventh Circu
• Forsythe v. Overmyer
  576 F.2d 779· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 43×
  A defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction in a state if they purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in that state, their claim arises from those activities, and the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable, even if the act occurred out-of-
• Honeywell, Inc. v. Metz Apparatewerke
  509 F.2d 1137· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-07 ·cited 43×
• Mariash v. Morrill
  496 F.2d 1138· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 43×·via Minimal Contacts
  The court held that Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 authorizes nationwide service of process, and venue is proper in the district where a significant act constituting the violation occurred, even if defendants lack direct contacts with that district.
• MacHtinger v. Inertial Airline Servs., Inc.
  937 So. 2d 730· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-09-01 ·cited 42×
  The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants who allegedly conspired with former IAS officers to defraud IAS through fraudulent invoices and misrepresentations directed t
• State v. The Am. Tobacco Co.
  707 So. 2d 851· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-03-04 ·cited 42×
  Florida appealed the dismissal of three parent tobacco corporations (B.A.T. Industries, BATUS Holdings, and Loews Corporation) from a Medicaid cost-recovery suit, arguing they had sufficient contacts through agency relationships with their tobacco-manufacturing subsidiaries. The
• Scullin Steel Co. v. Nat'l Ry. Utilization Corp.
  676 F.2d 309· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-27 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the defendant's contacts with Missouri were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute and due process.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Compagnie de Saint-Gobain-Pont-A-Mousson
  636 F.2d 1300· D.C. Cir.· 1980-11-17 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lacked the statutory authority to serve its investigative subpoena by registered mail to a foreign corporation's headquarters in France.
• Spiegel, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  540 F.2d 287· 7th Cir.· 1976-08-09 ·cited 41×·via Minimum Contacts Doctrine
  The FTC has the power to prohibit a business practice that is unfair to consumers under Section 5 of the FTC Act, even if the practice is legal under state law, but the scope of the FTC's order must be reasonably related to the violations found.
• Am. Baseball CAP, Inc. v. Duzinski
  308 So. 2d 639· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-01-31 ·cited 41×
  A foreign baseball cap manufacturer challenged service of process in a personal injury suit arising from a defective helmet. The court reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss, holding that a foreign corporation that was not doing business in Florida at the time o
• Pac. CAR & Foundry Co. v. Honorable Martin Pence
  403 F.2d 949· 9th Cir.· 1968-11-04 ·cited 41×
  Mandamus is appropriate to review a district court's denial of a motion for change of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) when the denial causes irremediable hardship and the trial will be protracted.
• Elkhart Eng'g Corp. v. Dornier Werke
  343 F.2d 861· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-13 ·cited 41×·via Minimum Contacts Doctrine
  Alabama's long-arm statute, Title 7, § 199(1), permits service of process on a foreign corporation for a tort arising from a single business transaction within the state, and such service comports with Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements.
• Kitroser v. Hurt
  85 So. 3d 1084· Fla.· 2012-03-22 ·cited 40×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the corporate shield doctrine does not bar personal jurisdiction over nonresident corporate employees who commit tortious acts while physically present in Florida, regardless of whether those acts were performed on behalf of their corporate emp
• Eulala Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines
  863 F.2d 1437· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendant's solicitation of business in Washington constituted purposeful availment, and under a 'but for' causation standard, the plaintiff's injury arose out of those forum-related activities, making the exercise of personal jurisdiction reasonable.
• Vencedora Oceanica Navigacion, S.A. v. Compagnie Nationale Algerienne de Navigation (C.N.A.N.) and The Republic of Algeria
  730 F.2d 195· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-05 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the 'doing business' standard can serve as a jurisdictional ground under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), consistent with congressional intent to subject foreign commercial entities to suit.
• Brown v. Flowers Indus., Inc.
  688 F.2d 328· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-22 ·cited 40×
  Due process permits exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who commits a single tort, in whole or in part, within the forum state, if the defendant purposefully avails himself of the forum's laws.
• Vencedor Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Gougler Indus., Inc.
  557 F.2d 886· 1st Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 40×
  A manufacturer's regular course of dealing, including direct shipments and extending credit to customers in a forum state, establishes sufficient minimum contacts to support personal jurisdiction, even if sales volume is small.
• Fisons Ltd. & Fisons Pharms. Ltd. v. United States
  458 F.2d 1241· 7th Cir.· 1972-01-05 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Interlocutory Appeals Act of 1958 applies to civil antitrust cases brought by the United States, even those covered by the Expediting Act, and that the petitioners had sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois to establish personal jurisdiction.
• Internet Solutions Corp. v. Tabatha Marshall
  557 F.3d 1293· 11th Cir.· 2009-02-10 ·cited 39×
  Internet Solutions Corporation appealed a district court's dismissal of its defamation claim against Tabatha Marshall, a Washington resident who posted allegedly defamatory content about ISC's website on her own website. The Eleventh Circuit certified to the Florida Supreme Court
• Am. Overseas Marine Corp. v. Patterson
  632 So. 2d 1124· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-03-09 ·cited 39×
  The Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that a nonresident corporation's sporadic vessel port calls in Florida—directed by the U.S. military rather than by the defendant's own business decisions
• Young v. AIR Canada
  445 So. 2d 1102· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-02-29 ·cited 39×
  The court held that a plaintiff must demonstrate a nexus between the cause of action and the defendant's business operations in Florida to establish personal jurisdiction, even if the defendant does business in the state.
• Compagnie Des Bauxites de Guinea v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.
  651 F.2d 877· 3d Cir.· 1981-06-10 ·cited 39×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a Rule 37 sanction to establish jurisdictional facts without requiring the plaintiff to first undertake discovery at the defendants' home base.
• Weller v. Cromwell OIL Co.
  504 F.2d 927· 6th Cir.· 1974-10-17 ·cited 39×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the defendants' contacts with Ohio were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, distinguishing the case from precedent relied upon by the majority.
• SkyHop Techs., Inc. v. Praveen Narra
  58 F.4th 1211· 11th Cir.· 2023-01-26 ·cited 38×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a tortious act under Florida's long-arm statute and satisfied the Due Process Clause.
• Prentice v. Prentice Colour, Inc.
  779 F. Supp. 578· M.D. Fla.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient minimum contacts for either general or specific personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute, as the alleged solicitation activities did not constitute continuous and systematic contacts for general jurisd
• Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Lovett & Tharpe, Inc.
  786 F.2d 1055· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 38×
  A Georgia corporation's isolated purchase of goods manufactured in Missouri, without more purposeful availment of Missouri's laws, does not establish sufficient minimum contacts for Missouri courts to exercise personal jurisdiction.
• VAN Buskirk v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.
  760 F.2d 481· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-17 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury's findings on statute of limitations, causation, damages, or the district court's procedural rulings, and upholding personal jurisdiction over ACL.
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Marina Salina Cruz
  649 F.2d 1266· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that exercising personal jurisdiction over the Mexican shipyard in Alaska would violate due process because it was unreasonable, despite the ship sinking in Alaskan waters.
• State ex rel. Guardian Credit Indem. Corp. v. Harrison
  74 So. 2d 371· Fla.· 1954-07-23 ·cited 38×·via Minimum Contacts Doctrine
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction over a foreign corporation (Guardian Credit Indemnity Corporation) based on service of process via the Secretary of State under Florida's long-arm statute. The court departed from the restrictive "mere solicitation rule" and adopted t
• Terry v. Raymond Int'l, Inc.
  658 F.2d 398· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-08 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court had personal jurisdiction over Manitowoc, that Louisiana law correctly applied to apportion liability, and that the jury's verdict was supported by evidence, but interest should be awarded from the date of judicial demand.
• The Founding Church OF Scientology OF Wash. v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag
  536 F.2d 429· D.C. Cir.· 1976-06-01 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the distributor's revenue from sales in the District of Columbia was substantial enough to establish personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, and that the doctrine of forum non conveniens did not warrant dismissal.
• Whittaker Corp. v. United Aircraft Corp.
  482 F.2d 1079· 1st Cir.· 1973-07-23 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a foreign corporation's extensive contacts, including supplying specifications and supervising performance within Massachusetts, established sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction, but passive purchasers with limited contacts did not.
• Sun Tr. Bank v. Sun Int'l Hotels, Ltd.
  184 F. Supp. 2d 1246· S.D. Fla.· 2001-12-10 ·cited 36×
  The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the forum-selection clause on the hotel registration form to be enforceable. The court applied the Bremen/Shute standard and found no fraud, overreaching, or lack of reasonable notice.
• Price v. Point Marine, Inc.
  610 So. 2d 1339· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-12-29 ·cited 36×
  Julie Price appealed a trial court's dismissal of her wrongful death lawsuit against Point Marine, Inc., a Louisiana shipping company, for lack of personal jurisdiction. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that Point Marine's sporadic contacts with
• Williams Elec. Co., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
  854 F.2d 389· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding sufficient minimum contacts with Florida under the long-arm statute.
• Gould, Inc. v. Pechiney Ugine Kuhlmann and Trefimetaux
  853 F.2d 445· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-02 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and improper venue, remanding for further development of these issues. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss for forum no
• Stuart v. Spademan
  772 F.2d 1185· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's contacts with Texas were insufficient to establish minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction, as his activities did not demonstrate purposeful availment of Texas law.
• Snyder v. Bruton Smith
  736 F.2d 409· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that it had personal jurisdiction over the appellant and that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, but reversed the district court's order compelling arbitration in Illinois when the agreement specified Texas.
• Olsen v. Gov't OF Mexico
  729 F.2d 641· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that both subject matter and personal jurisdiction exist over the Government of Mexico for wrongful death claims arising from an airplane crash in the United States.
• Glenn Earl Coulter and wife v. Sears
  426 F.2d 1315· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a manufacturer can be subject to personal jurisdiction in a state where its product causes injury, even if it has no direct contacts with the state, provided it places the product into the stream of commerce with the knowledge that it will be resold and used t
• Dragor Shipping Corp. v. Union Tank CAR Co.
  378 F.2d 241· 9th Cir.· 1967-04-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court lacked in personam jurisdiction to dismiss Dragor's compulsory counterclaim because the prior ruling that it lacked jurisdiction for the complaint implicitly meant it lacked jurisdiction for all purposes.
• Velandra v. Regie Nationale DES Usines Renault & Renault, Inc.
  336 F.2d 292· 6th Cir.· 1964-09-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendants' contacts with Michigan were insufficient to establish the minimum contacts required for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.
• Jen D. Cubbage v. Merchent
  744 F.2d 665· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 35×
• Gilson v. The Republic OF Ireland
  682 F.2d 1022· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that while most claims were barred by the statute of limitations, two counts alleging commercial misdeeds could proceed as subject matter and personal jurisdiction were sufficiently alleged under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
• P. S. R. Assocs. v. Artcraft-Heath
  364 So. 2d 855· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-11-29 ·cited 35×
  A Florida appellate court reversed the lower court's denial of a nonresident defendant partnership's motion to dismiss for lack of proper service of process. Although the trial court had jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant under Florida's long-arm statute, the court held
• Del Valle v. Trivago GMBH
  56 F.4th 1265· 11th Cir.· 2022-11-22 ·cited 34×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding sufficient contacts under Florida's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause.
• Gilles Rollet v. Gwenaelle de Bizemont
  159 So. 3d 351· Fla. 3d DCA· 2015-03-11 ·cited 34×
  Gilles Rollet, a French citizen residing in Dubai, appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a fraud case involving a Florida real estate contract assignment. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with instructions to dis
• World Class Yachts, Inc. v. Murphy
  731 So. 2d 798· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-04-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a dismissal with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction was error, and the plaintiff should be allowed to amend its complaint.
• Achievers Unlimited, Inc. v. Nutri Herb, Inc.
  710 So. 2d 716· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-05-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint against Michael Richter for lack of personal jurisdiction, but did not err in dismissing the complaint against Maxine Zitlin based on the commission of a tort within Florida.
• The Walt Disney Co. v. Nelson
  677 So. 2d 400· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-07-26 ·cited 34×
  Disney appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a premises liability case brought by an injured guest. The appellate court reversed, holding that Disney's uncontradicted affidavit establishing its lack of business operations