Wisconsin Electrical Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Pennant Products, Inc., and County of Monroe Industrial Development Agency

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant existed where defendant’s only contacts with the plaintiffs facilities in the forum state were a pre-contract negotiation visit and a post-contract performance negotiation visit
• finding that two visits by defendant’s agents to the forum state in connection with negotiating a contract established specific personal jurisdiction over defendant
• finding that personal jurisdiction did not offend the New York corporation‟s due process rights because it had availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities within Wisconsin through its contacts and thereby invoked the benefits and protections of its laws
• finding defendant’s visits to the forum state sufficient to confer 4 The active solicitation by Core Tech distinguishes our case from Hydrokinetics, Inc. v. Alaska Mech., Inc., 700 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1983
• to establish personal jurisdiction in a contract case, the defendant’s activities must “relate to the formation or performance of the contract”
• ‘The two visits by agents of the defendant to Wisconsin are enough, in our opinion, to distinguish this case from Lakeside.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).