Folden v. Shelton

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Daimler’s “exceptional case” had not been shown despite the fact that the defendant employed several people in the forum state, participated in marketing events in the state, and received revenue from its business in the state
• finding that plaintiff did not establish general jurisdiction where, inter alia, defendant had three employees working in New Jersey
• holding New Jersey’s registration and service statutes do not establish jurisdiction by consent
• finding no general jurisdiction where defendant received less than 1% of revenue from business in New Jersey
• finding “New Jersey statutory scheme does not permit jurisdiction by consent by virtue of registration to do business here or actually doing business here,”
• disregarding defendant’s contacts with New Jersey in analyzing whether New Jersey’s registration statutes constituted jurisdictional consent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).