Verizon Online Services, Inc. v. Ralsky

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that the Virginia long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction over any individual who solicits 19 business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue in Virginia
• stating that out-of-state tortfeasors cannot commit tortious acts “with impunity, avoiding personal jurisdiction simply by alleging that they did not know the exact location? of [where harm would be felt], yet knowing full well that their conduct [would cause] harm[ ]”
• explaining that a co-conspirator is subject to jurisdiction in a forum where substantial acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were performed by any member of the conspiracy if the co-conspirator knew or should have known that the acts would be performed
• “Making attendance more convenient or affordable for a willing witness still weighs in favor of transfer, just not as heavily.”
• discussing, in the context of e-mails, “the active as opposed to passive nature” of the internet communication as “weigh[ing] in favor of finding personal jurisdiction in the forum where the [electronic communication] was received”
• \spammer\ who sent e-mails to millions of recipients could reasonably expect to be \haled into a court in any state\ where the e-mails were received

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).