Shrader v. Biddinger

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that operating a website, on its own, does not “subject the owner or operator to personal jurisdiction” where the site is accessed
• concluding no specific personal jurisdiction for defendant who merely posted information on website accessible everywhere
• concluding there would have been specific personal jurisdiction for defendant who sent email if he had knowingly directed the email at someone in Oklahoma
• explaining that courts take as true only “well-pled (that is, plausible . . . and non-speculative) facts”
• observing that “in a sense, the internet operates ‘in’ every state regardless of where the user is physically located”
• observing that “in a sense, the internet operates ‘in’ every state regardless of where the user is physically located”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).