Marten v. Godwin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that court lacked special jurisdiction over the University of Kansas based on its expulsion of a Pennsylvania resident from its internet-based education program, allegedly in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercise of his freedom of expression under the First Amendment
• explaining that where “a plaintiff fails to show that the defendant ‘“manifest{[ed] behavior intentionally targeted at and focused on” the forum [state],’ the plaintiff fails to establish jurisdiction under the effects test’’
• stating that “nothing in the record indicates that defendants made defamatory statements or sent defamatory material to anyone in” the forum state and that “where defendants aimed their defamatory statements is jurisdictionally significant”
• applying the Calder effects test to evaluate personal jurisdiction in a case involving a retaliation claim
• noting that a plaintiff must also present facts establishing that the defendant aimed its Plaintiff argues that QVC had outlet retail stores in New Jersey until recently and ran tours which made stops in the state last summer. (PI.’s Reply Br. 7.
• explaining that “the state of a plaintiff’s residence does not on its own create jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. Jurisdiction is proper when the state of a plaintiff’s residence is the focus of the activities of the defendant out of which the suit arises.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).