Manigault v. United States

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 facts alleged were not “enough for the Court to find that [defendants] were, or should have been aware, of the alleged activities of the [defendant] in Philadelphia and therefore to exercise in personam jurisdiction on a conspiracy theory.”
• “[D]efault judgments are not looked upon favorably, particularly when significant damages may be involved.” (citation omitted)
• “[T]he Court holds that defendant’s filing of an answer which raises the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction prior to the filing of a Rule 12(b)(2) motion does not remove this motion from consideration by the Court on the ground that it is untimely.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).