Everett v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, by serving defendant in California, appellant did not comply with section 13-334(a)
• recognizing the “seminal requirement” that a nonresident defendant undertake “some affirmative act by which the defendant brings itself within the jurisdiction and established minimum contact”
• finding no general jurisdiction where defendant’s activities in the District were conducted “solely for the purpose of gathering information from the federal government”
• defendant served in California not subject to general jurisdiction under Section 13-334
• “specific jurisdictional requirement of D.C. Code § 13-334(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).