KENTUCKY, PETITIONER,
v.
HOLLIS DESHAUN KING.

U.S. | 2013-04-22
No. 12–140.
569 U.S. 954 Supreme Court of the United States (2013) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 185 L. Ed. 2d 879 · 133 S. Ct. 1995
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014)
    …ted certiorari to decide whether, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Daimler is amenable to suit in California courts for claims involving only foreign plaintiffs and conduct occurring entirely abroad. 569 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1995, 185 L.Ed.2d 865 (2013). II Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(k)(1)(A) (service of process is effective to establish personal jurisdiction over a def…
  • Jesner v. Arab Bank, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (U.S. 2018)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw