Dawson v. Egger

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it is “axiomatic . . . that the plaintiff’s business practices cannot contribute to the defendants’ contacts with New Hampshire toward establishing personal jurisdiction”
• holding that the defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the protections of New Hampshire law by sending “letters [that] were designed to inform the plaintiffs that their actions violated the laws of another State”
• finding that the “defendants’ letters [to the plaintiffs in New Hampshire] created the impetus to file” the lawsuit and, thus, “clearly relate[d] to the litigation”
• “In order for us to find personal jurisdiction, we must look only to the defendants’ contacts that relate to this litigation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).