Imo Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert Ag

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate third prong where defendant did not directly communicate with the forum state
• holding that a defendant’s knowledge that the plaintiff is located in the forum, without more, is insufficient to satisfy the targeting prong of the effects test
• concluding that “the Calder ‘effects test’ can only be satisfied if the plaintiff can point to contacts which demonstrate that the defendant expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum”
• noting that courts, in applying Calder to non-defamation cases, have adopted \a mixture of broad and narrow interpretations\
• concluding that “[s]ince none of [the] meetings occurred in New Jersey (or even in the United States), they provide no help to [the plaintiff] in demonstrating that [the defendant] targeted the forum”
• stating that in order to determine where defendant expressly aimed its tortious conduct, defendant’s knowledge of where plaintiff would suffer the brunt -of the harm should be considered

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).