Barns v. Osborne

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that New York courts do not have jurisdiction “where defendant merely telephones a single order from outside the state”
• concluding New York courts had jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who actively bid on items at a New York auction using a telephone line
• holding that a defendant who, while outside of New York, “receiv[ed] and transmitt[ed] bids over an open telephone line and was an active participant in an auction held [in New York]” had transacted business within the state
• concluding New York courts had jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who actively bid on items at a New York auction using a telephone line
• observing that “where a defendant was physically present at the time the contract was made” presents “the clearest sort of ease in which our courts would have 302 jurisdiction”
• finding that defendant transacted business for long-arm purposes when he participated in an auction held in New York by receiving and transmitting bids over the telephone

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).