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

• JET Charter Serv., Inc. v. Koeck
  907 F.2d 1110· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant bank's contacts with Florida were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• Pac. Atl. Trading Co., Inc. v. The M/V Main Express
  758 F.2d 1325· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in exercising personal jurisdiction over the Malaysian third-party defendants because their contacts with California were insufficient and the exercise of jurisdiction was unreasonable.
• Deluxe ICE Cream Co. v. R.C.H. Tool Corp.
  726 F.2d 1209· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant corporation is amenable to suit in Illinois under the 'transaction of any business' provision of the Illinois long-arm statute and that exercising jurisdiction does not violate due process.
• Telina Nelson v. Park Indus., Inc.
  717 F.2d 1120· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendants, a manufacturer and its agent, could be subject to personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin because they placed products into a stream of commerce destined for national retail sale and were aware of this distribution system.
• Wyatt v. Kaplan
  686 F.2d 276· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction in Texas, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery.
• Black v. Acme Mkts., Inc.
  564 F.2d 681· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a federal antitrust claim can be served under the Texas long-arm statute and that substantial purchases within Texas constitute transacting business for venue purposes under the Clayton Act.
• Milton Margoles, M.D. v. Alida Johns
  483 F.2d 1212· D.C. Cir.· 1973-06-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the District of Columbia's long-arm statute, specifically section (a)(3), does not grant personal jurisdiction over a defendant for tortious injury occurring in the District if the alleged tortious act occurred outside the District, absent additional significa
• Electro-Craft Corp. v. Maxwell Elecs. Corp.
  417 F.2d 365· 8th Cir.· 1969-10-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that substituted service under Minnesota's One Act Statute was valid over a foreign corporation because the contract was partially performed in Minnesota and the exercise of jurisdiction comported with due process.
• Delray Beach Aviation Corp. & Bert Boldt v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc.
  332 F.2d 135· 5th Cir.· 1964-05-06 ·cited 34×
  A foreign corporation engaging in business in Florida through a distributor with significant control over the distributor's operations is subject to Florida's long-arm statute for service of process.
• Augustus Blount v. Peerless Chems. (P.R.) Inc.
  316 F.2d 695· 2d Cir.· 1963-04-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Puerto Rican corporation's activities in New York were insufficient to establish 'doing business' for jurisdictional purposes, even under the International Shoe standard.
• Camp Illahee Invs., Inc. v. Blackman
  870 So. 2d 80· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-11-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the defendant's limited contacts with Florida, primarily through annual reunions and video shows, were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute for torts committed in North Carolina.
• Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
  805 F.2d 834· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-01 ·cited 33×
  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that Montana had personal jurisdiction and venue over Commonwealth Edison, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining Edison's later-filed Illinois action.
• Brownlow v. Aman
  740 F.2d 1476· 10th Cir.· 1984-08-02 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the appellants' motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction and in rejecting their proffered jury instructions.
• de Boom v. Arosa Mercantil, S.A.
  629 F.2d 1134· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-07 ·cited 33×
  A default judgment entered as a sanction for failure to comply with discovery orders is valid only if the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving such jurisdiction and valid service of process.
• Davis H. Elliot Co. Inc. v. Caribbean Utils. Co., Ltd.
  513 F.2d 1176· 6th Cir.· 1975-03-31 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the defendant corporation had sufficient minimum contacts with Kentucky to establish personal jurisdiction, and that the complaint stated a claim for tortious interference with contract against the individual defendants.
• Fulton v. Chicago
  481 F.2d 326· 8th Cir.· 1973-04-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding party responsibilities for loading machinery was substantially correct and did not warrant reversal.
• Time, Inc. v. Manning
  366 F.2d 690· 5th Cir.· 1966-09-29 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction and venue over Time, Inc. because its business activities in Louisiana established sufficient minimum contacts and met statutory requirements for service of process and venue.
• ECK v. United Arab Airlines, Inc.
  360 F.2d 804· 2d Cir.· 1966-05-13 ·cited 33×·via Minimum Contacts Doctrine
• Kertesz v. Net Transactions, Ltd.
  635 F. Supp. 2d 1339· S.D. Fla.· 2009-06-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants Ventura and TB, and that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a monetary damages claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
• State v. Wyndham Int'l, Inc.
  869 So. 2d 592· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-02-26 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Attorney General sued Wyndham International and individual corporate officers for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act based on undisclosed energy surcharges imposed at hotels. The appellate court held that two officers (Wagoner and McCle
• Heineken v. Heineken
  683 So. 2d 194· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-11-26 ·cited 32×
  A former husband appeals a trial court's order asserting personal jurisdiction over him in a child support and alimony modification case. The Florida appellate court reverses, holding that the former husband lacks sufficient contacts with Florida to subject him to jurisdiction un
• BEN M. Hogan Co., Inc. v. QDA Inv. Corp.
  570 So. 2d 1349· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-10-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to establish personal jurisdiction, even though the contract was executed out-of-state and some services were performed elsewhere.
• Teledyne, Inc. v. Kone Corp.
  892 F.2d 1404· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-10 ·cited 32×
  The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) authorizes pendent party jurisdiction, allowing removal of entire actions involving foreign states, and federal law, not state law, governs challenges to arbitration clauses under the Federal Arbitration Act.
• Thompson v. Chrysler Motors Corp.
  755 F.2d 1162· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court would have personal jurisdiction over Crimson if the complaints are amended to allege that a defect in the part supplied by Crimson caused the accident, as the sale and shipment of the part to a Mississippi dealer constitutes a sufficient co
• Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey
  734 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while it had jurisdiction over all defendants, the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the remedy at law (money damages) was adequate.
• In re a Grand Jury Subpoena Directed to Marc Rich & Co. v. United States
  707 F.2d 663· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-04 ·cited 32×
  A federal court has jurisdiction to enforce a grand jury subpoena against a foreign corporation if the government shows a reasonable probability that it will ultimately establish jurisdiction, considering the corporation's contacts with the United States and the effects of its ac
• Greenspun v. DEL E. Webb Corp.
  634 F.2d 1204· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that personal jurisdiction should have been exercised over two defendants, but the plaintiff failed to comply with the demand requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.1, and the Foundation was not an indispensable party.
• Commonwealth OF Puerto RICO v. The SS ZOE Colocotroni
  628 F.2d 652· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the defendants' pleadings as a sanction for discovery misconduct, and that the plaintiffs had standing to sue for environmental damages.
• Neiman v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd.
  619 F.2d 1189· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 32×
  Personal jurisdiction exists over defendants for contract claims arising from their transaction of business in Illinois, but not for the tort claim due to lack of pleaded facts.
• Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int'l, Inc.
  551 F.2d 784· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction because the defendant did not cause an event to occur in Arizona and asserting jurisdiction would violate due process.
• Woodring v. Crown Eng'g Co.
  141 So. 2d 816· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-06-01 ·cited 32×·via Minimum Contacts Doctrine
  The court held that the insured's misrepresentation of inventory size was material, allowing the insurer to avoid the policy.
• Banco De Los Trabajadores v. Cortez Moreno
  237 So. 3d 1127· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-01-24 ·cited 31×
  The trial court applied an incorrect constitutional standard for general jurisdiction by failing to apply the Daimler/Goodyear "essentially at home" test, requiring remand for proper application of that standard. Cortez's allegations were insufficient to establish specific jurisd
• Harris Schwartzberg v. Knobloch
  98 So. 3d 173· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-09-07 ·cited 31×
  A nursing home resident's estate sued nonresident New York individuals and trusts with indirect ownership interests in the Florida nursing home where the resident died, seeking to establish personal jurisdiction. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the defendants' moti
• Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
  818 F.2d 370· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 31×
  A Texas court cannot exercise general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant for claims unrelated to the defendant's contacts with Texas, even if a large volume of the defendant's products flows into the state.
• Kane v. The Am. Bank OF Merritt Island
  449 So. 2d 974· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-05-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the presumption of payment at the creditor's location satisfies Florida's long-arm statute for contract performance, and that nonresident guarantors had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to justify personal jurisdiction.
• Varsic v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  607 F.2d 245· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-05 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court erroneously transferred the case, as venue was proper in the Central District of California under the ERISA venue provision, and granted a writ of mandamus to rescind the transfer order.
• Knepfle v. J & P Cycles, LLC
  48 F.4th 1282· 11th Cir.· 2022-09-14 ·cited 30×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred by exercising personal jurisdiction over HJC without conducting a veil-piercing or alter-ego analysis, and that the exclusion of the plaintiff's expert testimony was proper.
• Casita, L.P. v. Maplewood Equity P'rs L.P.
  960 So. 2d 854· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-07-11 ·cited 30×
  This appeal addresses whether injury to a Florida plaintiff caused by a tortious act committed outside Florida is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute. The court held that it is not, reversing the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack
• Dev. Corp. OF Palm Beach v. WBC Constr., L.L.C.
  925 So. 2d 1156· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-04-26 ·cited 30×
  Development Corp. sought damages from BMHC for breach of a construction contract, alleging BMHC was a parent company of the contractor WBC. The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over BMHC, and the appellate court affirmed, finding BMHC lacked sufficient mini
• Enic, PLC v. F.F. S. & Co., Inc.
  870 So. 2d 888· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-03-19 ·cited 30×
  Enic, PLC, a United Kingdom parent company, appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a fraud and breach of contract action arising from the sale of Church Street Station in Orlando, Florida by its subsidiary. The court reversed, holding th
• Global Satellite Commc'n Co. v. Sari Sudline and Fernand Sultan
  849 So. 2d 466· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-07-16 ·cited 30×
  Global Satellite Communication Co. appeals the dismissal of its breach of contract action against French company Sudline and its agent Sultan for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Fourth District reversed the dismissal as to Sudline, finding that the combination of a contractual
• Bean Dredging Corp. v. Dredge Tech. Corp.
  744 F.2d 1081· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-20 ·cited 30×
  A manufacturer of component parts that places its products into the stream of commerce, with the expectation that they will be purchased and used nationwide, has sufficient minimum contacts with a forum state for personal jurisdiction, even if it has no direct dealings with that
• Aaron Ferer & Sons Co. v. Diversified Metals Corp.
  564 F.2d 1211· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendants' contacts with Nebraska were insufficient to establish in personam jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause, affirming the dismissal of the complaints.
• Duple Motor Bodies, Ltd. v. Hollingsworth
  417 F.2d 231· 9th Cir.· 1969-09-19 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge argues that exercising jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based on minimal, extraterritorial contacts violates due process and intrudes on international relations.
• The Trs. OF Columbia Univ. IN the City OF NEW York v. Ocean World, S.A.
  12 So. 3d 788· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-05-06 ·cited 29×
  Columbia University challenges a circuit court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a lawsuit filed by Ocean World, a Dominican Republic corporation, alleging interference with contract and negligent retention. The Fourth District Court of Appeal
• Res. Healthcare OF Am., Inc. v. McKINNEY
  940 So. 2d 1139· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-08-11 ·cited 29×
  Resource Healthcare, a Tennessee corporation, appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a negligence suit arising from nursing home care. The appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a statutory
• deMCO Techs., Inc. v. C.S. Engineered Castings, Inc.
  769 So. 2d 1128· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-10-18 ·cited 29×
  DeMco Technologies and its owner appealed a trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a breach of promissory note action filed by a Florida corporation. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a defendant's mere failure
• Bellairs v. Mohrmann
  716 So. 2d 320· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-08-14 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the appellants' amended third-party complaint sufficiently alleged facts to establish a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction over the non-resident principals under the alter ego theory, requiring an evidentiary hearing.
• Jere William Thompson v. Jane DOE (alias)
  596 So. 2d 1178· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-04-03 ·cited 29×
  Thompson, president of Southland Corporation, appeals an order denying his motion to quash service of process and motion to abate for lack of personal jurisdiction in a negligence action brought by an employee sexually assaulted at a Southland store in Florida. The Fifth District
• Milberg Factors, Inc. v. Greenbaum
  585 So. 2d 1089· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-09-10 ·cited 29×
  A foreign corporation's isolated business contacts with Florida, such as filing financing statements and occasional agreements, are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.