Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Clark

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery where “the pleadings contained no allegations of specific facts that could establish the requisite contacts with the District”
• in order to demonstrate a basis for the exercise of in personam jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate not only that defendant has transacted business in the District, but also that the claims asserted relate to that business transacted in the District

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• John Edmond v. United States Postal Service General Counsel
  D.C. Circuit· 1992-02-11· cited 189×
• Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Realtime Gaming Holding Co., LLC
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2005-06-22· cited 100×
• Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V.
  Fourth Circuit· 1993-08-19· cited 66×
• Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Dockery
  M.D. North Carolina· 1995-02-07· cited 11×
• Dickson v. United States
  District of Columbia· 1993-09-08· cited 11×
• Martin-Trigona v. Acton Corp.
  District of Columbia· 1984-12-13· cited 4×
• Mylan Laboratories, Incorporated v. Akzo, N.V.
  Fourth Circuit· 1993-08-19· cited 1×
• Allen v. Addi
  District of Columbia· 2021-09-22
• EBM Group Corp. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.
  District of Columbia· 1992-11-04