Seventh Circuit· 6/6/2012

Robert Felland v. Patrick Clifton

Citations

682 F.3d 665
2012 WL 2016813
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11380

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).

Judges: Flaum, Manion, Sykes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

64 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.