Elaine G. Caruth v. International Psychoanalytical Association

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that in such cases 5 courts “only inquire into whether [the plaintiff's] pleadings and affidavits make a prima facie 6 showing of personal jurisdiction.”
• explaining that because the factors were split between the two parties, defendant did not “present[] a ‘compelling case’ that exercising jurisdiction over it would be unreasonable”
• stating that the defendant “has not presented a ‘compelling case’ that 28 exercising jurisdiction over it would be unreasonable” where “neither party is clearly 1 favored in the final balance”
• applying the purposeful 8 direction analysis to a case involving defamation, intentional interference with business 9 relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress
• “[G]iven the closeness of the factors, we conclude that [defendant] has not presented a ‘compelling case’ that exercising jurisdiction over it would be unreasonable.”
• “[G]iven the closeness of the factors, we conclude that [defendant] has not presented a ‘compelling case’ that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).