SUSSLI

v.

CITY OF SAN MATEO ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987)
  …ert. denied, 474 U. S. 980 (1985), and when the defendant’s product was not sold in the forum State and the defendant “did not take advantage of an indirect marketing scheme,” DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc., 654 F. 2d 280, 285, cert. denied, 454 U. S. 1085 (1981). In dissent, I argued that the distinction was without constitutional significance, because in my view the foreseeability that a customer would use a product in a distant State was a sufficient basis for jurisdiction. 444 U. S., at 306-307,…
• Telina Nelson v. Park Indus., Inc., 717 F.2d 1120 (7th Cir. 1983)
  …ry distributor have intended to serve a broader market and they derive direct benefits from serving that market. See Hendrickson v. Reg O Co., 657 F. 2d 9 (3d Cir.1981); De James v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc., 654 F. 2d 280 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1085, 102 5.Ct. 642, 70 L.Ed.2d 620 (1981); Poyner v. Erma Werke GMBH, 618 F. 2d 1186 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 841, 101 S.Ct. 121, 66 L.Ed.2d 49 (1980); Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F. 2d 191 (5th Cir.1980); Samuels v. BMW of North America, Inc…
• Pac. Atl. Trading Co., Inc. v. The M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1985)
  …the district court’s admiralty jurisdiction, the due process clause of the fifth amendment determines whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc., 654 F. 2d 280, 283 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1085, 102 S.Ct. 642, 70 L.Ed.2d 620 (1981). In addition, the state long-arm statute must be applied to determine the defendant’s amenability to suit in the forum. Id. The applicable California jurisdictional statute, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 410.10 (West 197…