Fraser v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \[a] defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within [Florida]\ is subject to general jurisdiction in Florida
• holding that “[a] defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within [Florida]” is subject to general jurisdiction in Florida
• finding that for specific jurisdiction, the defendant's contact with the forum \must be a 'but-for' cause of the tort.\
• reasoning that if the tour boat operator was “subject to general personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2)” it would necessarily • “imply that the company is amenable to suit everywhere in the United States on any claim arising under federal law”
• noting, for purposes of a Rule 4(k)(2) specific-jurisdiction analysis, that “our inquiry must focus on the direct causal relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation” (quotation marks omitted)
• stating in a case dealing with Florida’s general personal jurisdiction that “the mere existence of a website that is visible in a forum . . . is not enough, by itself, to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction in that forum”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).