Arthur F. Sawtelle, Etc. v. George E. Farrell

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “transmission of information” into a state “by way of telephone or mail” constitutes contact with the state for purposes of personal jurisdiction
• finding that New Hampshire has a far smaller interest in adjudicating a controversy where the vast majority of the injury, and the acts causing the injury, occurred outside the state
• explaining that, in Kowalski, “we rejected the plaintiffs contention that, because the ‘effects’ of the [defendant law] firm’s negligence were felt in New Hampshire, the law firm had caused an injury there by conduct directed at that forum .... The injury, if any, occurred in Massachusetts”
• mailing of letters into forum conveying information insufficient to establish jurisdiction where decisions made elsewhere
• describing the three essential jurisdictional elements as “relatedness,” “purposeful availment,” and the so-called “Gestalt factors”
• describing the three essential jurisdictional elements as “relatedness,” “purposeful availment,” and the so-called “Gestalt factors”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).