Canale v. Rubin

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that specific personal jurisdiction “requires a causal connection between the defendant’s activities in Florida and the plaintiff’s cause of action, a requirement known as ‘connexity’”
• stating that where facts recited in a sworn affidavit cannot be reconciled with facts set forth in a sworn complaint, the court must hold an eviden-tiary hearing
• reversing as to one defendant because “the circuit court's order did not reflect that it had analyzed whether this action [the alleged tort] constituted sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ necessary to satisfy due process”
• reversing for evidentiary hearing where complaint alleged facts that might support jurisdiction over non-resident defendant, based on numerous business-related communications with Florida resident, where details of communications were disputed by defendant’s affidavit
• “Specific jurisdiction . . . requires a causal connection between 4 the defendant’s activities in Florida and the plaintiff’s cause of action, a requirement known as ‘connexity.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).