Macias v. California

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the mere fact that a bank conducted, business through branch offices in New York was insufficient to satisfy constitutional due process
• holding that the existence of a branch office in the forum was not sufficient to establish general jurisdiction when an entity is headquartered elsewhere
• holding that the district court had equitable authority to freeze defendant trademark infringer’s assets pending adjudication of plaintiff’s accounting action in equity against defendant
• holding that a request for an accounting and an award of profits is an equitable remedy for which there is no right to a jury trial
• concluding that a bank that “has branch offices in the forum, but is incorporated and headquartered elsewhere,” was not subject to general jurisdiction in New York
• concluding that a defendant did not “waive its personal jurisdiction objection” when, prior to an intervening decision, “controlling precedent in this Circuit made it clear that [the defendant] ... was properly subject to general personal jurisdiction” (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).