Bankers Trust Co. v. Fidata Trust Co. New York

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the reviewing court will presume the trial court decided the facts necessary to support its decision
• stating that the reviewing court will presume the trial court decided the facts necessary to support its decision
• holding phone calls and mailings were “not the type [of connections] that would have led [the nonresident party] to believe it would be haled into [the] court” of the plaintiffs home state
• holding phone calls and mailings were “not the type [of connections] that would have led [the nonresident party] to believe it would be haled into [the] court” of the plaintiffs home state
• presuming court decided facts necessary to support decision when it failed to explain issue raised and no enlargement of ruling sought
• stating “[t]he nonresident corporation’s physical presence within the forum state is not essential to a finding of sufficient minimum contacts; contacts by telephone or mail may suffice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).