Johnson v. Arden

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a website hosting company was immune to state tort claims grounded on unwelcome content posted to a client’s website
• holding that Missouri court lacked personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who posted about Missouri residents because the website did not “specifically target” Missouri
• holding that “absent additional contacts, mere effects in the forum state are insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction”
• holding that Colorado defendant who posted an allegedly defamatory statement online about the Missouri plaintiff’s business “does not create the type of substantial connection between [the defendant] and Missouri necessary to confer specific personal jurisdiction”
• explaining that website was not “uniquely or expressly aimed at Missouri,” and so “Calder provides no support for [plaintiffs’] Lanham Act claim”
• stating that for purposes of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, “the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).