Skip to main content
First Circuit· 4/28/2008

Hannon v. Beard

Citations

  • 524 F.3d 275
  • 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9218
  • 2008 WL 1850591

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that it was reasonable for Pennsylvania defendant to appear in Massachusetts
  • noting that the court may consider certain materials extrinsic to the pleadings in evaluating a motion to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction grounds
  • stating that insubstantial contact with Massachusetts can be sufficient because “less is required to support jurisdiction when the cause of action arises from the defendant’s contacts with the forum ... than when it does not”
  • \The purposeful availment requirement ... is based upon the cornerstones of voluntariness and foreseeability.\ (quotation marks omitted)
  • “Where, as here, parties of substantial means are involved, cross- country travel ordinarily does not qualify as a special or unusual burden.”
  • “The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Torruella, Wallace, Lipez

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

38 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.