Gorman, David J. v. AmeriTrade Hold Corp

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “specific jurisdiction” is not available where the claim “does not arise out of any business transacted between the parties in the District .... ”
• affirming on a different issue, but noting that it would otherwise remand for jurisdictional discovery in an Internet personal jurisdiction case
• finding the website that defendant, an out-of-state securities broker, operated may have been sufficient to exercise general jurisdiction where the website enabled D.C. residents to open brokerage accounts, transmit funds electronically, and buy and sell securities
• a website through which customers in the forum state engage in transactions may confer personal jurisdiction where “essentially passive” websites do not
• “‘Cyberspace’ . . . is not some mystical incantation capable of warding off the jurisdiction of courts built from bricks and mortar.”
• “The mere accessibility of the defendants’ websites ... does not establish the necessary minimum contacts with this forum.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).