Reynolds Metals Co. v. Fmali, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that defendant established a “substantial and continuing” relationship with plaintiff in Richmond where, among other things, defendant communicated technical and delivery information to Richmond during negotiations
• noting that defendant’s employees “may have believed” that Reynolds’s decisions were made primarily in California and Texas where defendant’s employees in Texas and California played a “prominent role”
• taking parties’ continuing relationship into consideration in finding that specific personal jurisdiction was proper
• finding personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendant based, in part, on plaintiff's extensive manufacturing in Virginia
• taking parties' continuing relationship into consideration in finding that specific personal jurisdiction was proper
• finding two-year agreement involving over a million dollars in goods was “substantial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).