Stuart v. Peykan, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[m]ere telephone ... contact with an out-of-state defendant is insufficient to establish the purposeful activity with Georgia required by the long-arm statute”
• finding that individual outside of Georgia who was solicited by a party inside George to guarantee a note did not have sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction
• that guaranty of note was gratuitous is listed as a factor showing that the guarantor had not purposefully availed himself of privilege of doing business in Georgia
• fact that nonresident’s guaranty of purchase money note was “gratuitous,” that is, guarantor did not receive any ownership interest in restaurant purchased, indicated that guarantor had not “purposefully availed himself of the law of Georgia

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).