Paul I. Murphy v. Erwin-Wasey, Inc.

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 defendant which sends a false statement into a state “intending that it should there be relied upon to the injury of a resident of that state” has acted within the receiving state under § 3(c)
• noting that “if plaintiff alleges that defendant’s agents made misrepresentations to him personally within Massachusetts, defendant would without question be within the jurisdiction of the court.”
• explaining that “[w]here a defendant knowingly sends into a state a false statement, intending that it should there be relied upon to the injury of a resident of that state, he has, for jurisdictional purposes [under § 3(c)], acted within that state”
• telephoning and mailing intentionally deceptive material from foreign jurisdiction into forum state
• “Where a defendant knowingly sends into a state a false statement, intending it to be relied upon to the injury of a resident of that state, he has, for jurisdictional purposes, acted within that state.”
• “Where a defendant knowingly sends into a state a false statement, intending that it should there be relied upon to the injury of a resident of that state, he has, for jurisdictional purposes, acted within that state.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).