Miami Laundry Co. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction under § 3104(c)(1) because its alleged co-conspirators transacted business in Delaware
• holding that the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction under § 3104(c)(1) because its alleged co- conspirators transacted business in Delaware
• holding that the complaint supported an inference that a non-resident defendant knew that the corporation was a Delaware entity, that a certificate of dissolution had been filed in Delaware, and that co-conspirators intended to continue the business after dissolution
• noting that a conspirator’s knowledge of a conspiratorial act in Delaware after it occurs, but while the conspiracy is ongoing, is sufficient to satisfy Istituto Bancario’s fourth factor
• maintaining jurisdiction over a non-Delaware entity under conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction because Delaware’s long-arm statute extends to anyone who “[t]ransacts any business . . . in the State,” quoting 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(1
• “We decide whether a Delaware court has jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a two-step analysis. First, the court must determine whether Delaware's long arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104(c), is applicable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).