Kalergis v. Virginia Comm'r of Highways

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that naming a Wisconsin company as an additional insured did not “constitute[] a contact with the state of Wisconsin” and did not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction
• explaining that deriving a financial benefit in a state “is not the equivalent of Ëdoing business in’” the state
• instructing that a court can only exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant who has made “deliberate contact” with Illinois itself
• choice of law for dispute resolution in non-forum state weighed against personal jurisdiction in forum
• “Only a defendant’s actions can empower a state to exercise jurisdiction over him.” (citation omitted)
• defendants had no purposeful contact with the state during contract negotiation process

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).