Harlow v. Children's Hospital

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that accepting unsolicited referrals from doctors in forum does not subject hospital to suit there
• holding that “[f]or specific jurisdiction, the plaintiffs claim must be related to the defendant’s contacts”
• holding that “the defendant’s in-state conduct must form an important, or at least material, element of proof in the plaintiff’s case”
• concluding “proper focus” of specific-jurisdiction analysis is “contacts leading up to and surrounding the claimed injury”
• explaining that contacts relevant for specific jurisdiction are those to which the cause of action are related
• explaining that contacts relevant for specific jurisdiction are those to which the cause of action are related

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).