M'Learn v. Pettit

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that corporation and subsidiary maintained separateness because “[t]hey keep separate general ledgers, prepare distinct financial reports, and have separate assets.”
• noting that general personal jurisdiction exists where defendant’s affiliations with the state are so “continuous and systematic” that a defendant is essentially at home in the state
• noting that general personal jurisdiction exists where defendant’s affiliations with the state are so “continuous and systematic”—such as a corporation’s place of incorporation or principal place of business—that a defendant is essentially at home in the state
• noting that general personal jurisdiction exists where defendant’s affiliations with the state are so “continuous and systematic”—such as a corporation’s place of incorporation or principal place of business—that a defendant is essentially at home in the state
• denying request for venue discovery because the movant “has not offered a basis to believe discovery will yield information supporting venue under any factor”
• denying request for venue discovery because the movant “has not offered a basis to believe discovery will yield information supporting venue under any factor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).