Kimmel v. Berresheim

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the defendants consented to jurisdiction by registering to do business in New Jersey, appointing an agent for service of process, and conducting business in the State
• following Litton Indus. Sys. Inc. v. Kennedy Van Saun Corp., 283 A.2d 551, 556 (1971)
• acknowledging Daimler as causing a shift in the general jurisdiction standard
• ―[D]esignation of an in-state agent for service of process in accordance with a state registration statute may constitute consent to personal jurisdiction, if supported by the breadth of the statute‘s text or interpretation.‖
• “Indeed, the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled the holdings of [ or , 257 U.S. 213 (1921)], and in the absence of such declaration, the Supreme Court directs the continued application of its precedents.”
• ―[T]he Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled the holdings of [cases holding that consent by registration is a valid basis for general jurisdiction], and in the absence of such declaration, the Supreme Court directs the continued application of its precedents.‖

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).