Helmer, John v. Doletskaya, Elena

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that injury did not “occur” in D.C. when injurious acts did not take place in D.C. and injured party did not reside in D.C.
• holding that the formation and performance of a contract in the District and the parties contemplated future contacts with the District as a condition of performance gave the district court personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant
• concluding that contract in which “the parties contemplated future repeated contacts with the District of Columbia as a condition of performance,” among other things, created “a substantial connection with the District of Columbia” permitting suit
• noting that the D.C. Circuit adopted the concept of pendent personal jurisdiction in Oetiker v. Jurid Werke, G.m.b.H., 556 F.2d 1, 4–5 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
• explaining that the court “need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiffs if such inferences are unsupported by the facts” when deciding personal jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing
• finding that personal jurisdiction was proper over a. defendant who entered into a contract in D.C. when that contract required sending monthly billing statements to D.C. and having bills paid from D.C. accounts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).