Cotton Logistics, Inc. v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no substantial and continuous business even though defendant did 1.5% of its business with Pennsylvania residents
• finding no general jurisdiction over corporate defendant who advertised in national publications that circulated in Pennsylvania, received 1.5% of its business from Pennsylvania, and bought .3% of its products from Pennsylvania
• no general jurisdiction over defendant that “does a small portion of its total business — approximately 1.5% — with residents of Pennsylvania”
• no general jurisdiction where defendant had no employees who resided or were based in Pennsylvania, did not advertise or maintain a mailing address in state, and where a small portion of total business (1.5%) was conducted in state

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).