Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. Angelloz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that there was a connection between the defendant’s Internet post and the on-the-ground situation in the forum state, a situation that included threats reported to the state police and warnings for plaintiffs to leave their home
• explaining that a defendant who provides a physical location for the target of harassment intends to cause some action in the forum state or “catch the eye of those most able to make contact with” the plaintiff in that state
• documenting that, in 2016, “the number of officers intentionally killed r[ose] over fifty percent to sixty- four officers killed by gunfire,” and that “[p]lolice in 2016 were physically attacked tens of thousands of times, according to law enforcement agencies’ self-reported numbers”
• distinguishing between using a 3 Plaintiff provided ex parte an unredacted example of the screenshot on page 7 of his sur-reply. (Dkt. 35 at 7
• finding “it is plausible that [defendant] intended to pique Michiganders’ interest with her tweet” by revealing plaintiff’s address in Michigan
• declining to exercise personal jurisdiction over two defendants who tweeted about plaintiff, a Michigan resident; noting that “[t]hese allegations were not about Michigan in particular but about Joel in particular—wherever he might have been living”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).