Morrison v. Hunter

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that conflicts between the facts contained in the parties' affidavits must be 1 resolved in plaintiffs favor for purposes of deciding whether a prima facie case for personal 2 jurisdiction exists
• holding that a subsidiary was not an agent because there was “no evidence that in the absence of [the foreign corporation’s] California subsidiaries involved in petrochemical and chemical operations, [the foreign corporation] would conduct and control those operations”
• endorsing the Gallagher court’s holding that imputing a subsidiary’s jurisdictional contacts to its parent on an agency theory is improper when the parent corporation is merely a holding company
• adopting Doe v. 27 Unocal Corp., 27 F.Supp.2d 1174, 1180 (C.D. Cal. 1998) as its opinion
• affirming district court’s refusal to attribute the contacts of subsidiaries to a parent corporation
• stating 8 that alter ego test is satisfied where the parent dictates every facet of the subsidiary’s business- 9 from broad policy decisions to routine matters of day-to-day operations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).