Fischbarg v. Doucet

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendants’ calls and emails to plaintiff in New York were transactions giving rise to the cause of action
• holding that a Californian Defendant transacted businesses in New York for establishing an ongoing attorney-client relationship with an attorney in New York
• noting that “[p]urposeful activities” are “those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State”
• finding purposeful activity where defendant attempted to establish relationship through calls, faxes and emails projected into New York over months
• finding personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants who “sought out plaintiff in New York and established an ongoing attorney-client relationship with him”
• finding long-arm jurisdiction given defendants’ “substantial ongoing professional commitment between themselves and plaintiff”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).