Charles J. Brainerd v. The Governors of the University of Alberta J. Peter Meekison Eugene S. Lechelt Pamela Jarvis

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that former employers purposefully availed themselves to Arizona when they allegedly defamed a Tucson resident by communicating the rumors surrounding the plaintiffs departure to a future employer in Arizona
• holding that there was personal jurisdiction over a defendant who “knew the injury and harm stemming from his communications would occur in Arizona, where [plaintiff] planned to live and work
• finding that defendant’s contacts did not satisfy the purposeful availment test, but did satisfy the purposeful direction test
• determining that defamatory statements made by a Canadian, during a telephone conversation initiated by a person in Arizona, conferred jurisdiction in Arizona because the nonresident defendant allegedly knew that the injury and harm resulting from the communication would be felt in Arizona
• examining defendant's contacts of two phone calls and a letter, all in his capacity as university vice-president, and finding personal jurisdiction
• declining to find purposeful availment test met where alleged contacts consisted of communications between individuals at two universities, and the defendant did not otherwise conduct business in the proposed forum state

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).