Robert Felland v. Patrick Clifton

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant’s “communications were intentional misrepresentations under Wisconsin law, which suffices to establish ‘intentional and allegedly tortious conduct’”
• holding that the defendant “knew the alleged harm would be felt in Wisconsin,” in part because the plaintiffs’ “Wisconsin residency was noted in various documents possessed and signed by [the defendant]”
• explaining that “the threshold for general jurisdiction is quite high because ‘the contacts must be sufficiently extensive and pervasive to approximate physical presence’ ” (quoting Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 701)
• stating that courts should “resolve any factual disputes in the affidavits in favor of the plaintiff”
• noting that on a breach-of-contract claim the jurisdictional analysis would be limited to the defendant’s conduct “during contract formation”
• stating that “the nature of the purposeful-direction/ purposeful-availment inquiry depends in large part on the type of claim at issue,” and that “the tort-vs.-contract distinction is highly significant to the personal-jurisdiction analysis”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).