United States v. Nieves Rivera

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that passive investment activity did not constitute transacting business under § 3(a)
• finding that a website was insufficient to establish purposeful availment because it was available to anyone with internet access, did not target Massachusetts’ residents, and contained “generic advertising” that was no more likely to solicit customers in Massachusetts than anywhere else.”
• denying jurisdictional discovery where plaintiffs did not allege “that these contacts will be based entirely, or even mostly, in Massachusetts or that they will be sufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirements”
• summarizing Cossaboon, 600 F.3d at 35
• summarizing Cossaboon, 600 F.3d at 35

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).