Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Maples Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that approximately 100 phone calls by defendant to plaintiff were insufficient, alone, to support a finding of personal jurisdiction
• holding that 100 telephone calls from defendant to third party in forum state were “insufficient, alone, to confer personal jurisdiction”
• holding that 100 telephone calls by defendant to plaintiff were “insufficient, alone, to confer personal jurisdiction”
• holding in trade secret misappropriation case that court had appellate pendent jurisdiction to review personal jurisdiction determination underlying appealable preliminary injunction order
• finding no general jurisdiction where the nonresident had “no offices, inventory, bank accounts, real estate, personal property, employees, or agents in” the forum state
• in a trade secret misappropriation case, the “non-resident” must have “purposely directed its activities at forum residents”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).