Pennzoil Products Company v. Colelli & Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[s]ince the facts of this case satisfy the standards of both Asahi Metal pluralities, we do not have occasion to select one standard or the other as the law of this circuit”
• observing that jurisdiction may be appropriate although defendant “does not come into direct contact with the forum state but does so through intermediaries”
• noting that if minimum contacts are present, then jurisdiction will be unreasonable only in “rare cases”
• noting that if minimum contacts are present, then jurisdiction will be unreasonable only in “rare cases”
• finding that the nonresident defendant “expressed a desire to preserve its relationship with at least one Pennsylvania refinery ... by conforming its solvents to the refinery’s specifications”
• acknowledging that only in “rare cases” does fairness defeat otherwise valid personal jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).