Consulting Engineers Corp. v. Geometric Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that where a party has failed to satisfy the first prong of the specific jurisdiction test, the court need not analyze the remaining prongs
• holding that a court need not consider prongs two and three if plaintiff does not satisfy the first prong
• holding that a court need not consider prongs two and three if plaintiff does not satisfy the first prong
• holding that a court need not consider prongs two and three if the plaintiff does not satisfy the first prong
• holding that, even combined with a contract’s choice-of-law provision selecting Virginia law, “four brief emails, several telephone conversations ..., and . the exchange of the various drafts” was insufficient to show purposeful availment of forum state
• holding that personal jurisdiction exists where the party “made in-person contact with the resident of the forum in the forum state regarding the business relationship” and where “the performance of contractual duties was to occur within the forum.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).