Young v. New Haven Advocate

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 “in the Internet context requires proof that the out-of-state defendant’s Internet activity is expressly targeted or directed at the forum state”
• holding that Virginians’ ability to access a website was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction
• holding that articles from two Connecticut newspapers on Virginia prison that were posted online were aimed at Connecticut and provided insufficient internet contacts for Virginia courts to assert personal jurisdiction over defendants
• explaining that the mere “posting and accessibility” of the information in a State is not enough
• holding Virginia courts lacked specific jurisdiction over Connecticut newspapers that allegedly defamed Virginia resident in articles posted on internet
• noting that courts should consider the first two prongs together when the Internet activity involves posting on a website

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).