Cossart v. United Excel Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that relatedness prong was met when contract was “procured with a Massachusetts resident to be performed by the resident primarily from Massachusetts”
• holding that relatedness prong was met when contract was “procured with a Massachusetts resident to be performed by the resident primarily from Massachusetts”
• holding that jurisdiction must be conferred under both constitutional due process and statutory schemes
• holding that the term \transacting any business\ is construed broadly
• noting that “the performance of work under [a] contract [by a plaintiff]” is properly “treated as contact with the forum by the out-of-state company because the voluntary contractual relationship had foreseeable led the [plaintiff] to undertake that work.”
• finding \transacting any business\ requirement met when company hired Massachusetts resident, employed him for a period of years, and registered a sales office in the state

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).