Dring v. Sullivan

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an allegedly defamatory email about a taekwondo referee sent into Maryland did not meet the requirements of section 6—103(b)(3) or 6—103(b)(4), even though the defendant had worked as a referee in Maryland in the past
• finding this provision inapplicable where there was no evidence that the Defendant sent the allegedly tortious email “from Maryland”
• applying Colder and ESAB in the context of harm caused through the internet
• defendants emailing Maryland plaintiffs with knowledge that plaintiffs resided in Maryland insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction
• “Courts that cite this ‘merged into one’ language typically do not discuss the long-arm statute, and instead proceed directly to the, □ constitutional analysis.”
• § 6-103(b)(3) was inapplicable because defendant’s allegedly tortious conduct, the sending of a purportedly defamatory email, occurred in New Jersey

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).