Cited by

Co., (citation omitted).

Co., (“[S]tate jurisdiction over foreign defendants is impermissible unless the defendant, not the plaintiff, has purposefully directed its activities at the forum state.”).

Co., (“[T]he requisite minimum contacts are not established when the plaintiff’s action requires the defendant to send communications into the forum.”) (quotation omitted), or communications with people who happen to be in Arizona about a contract between Canadian corporations that never mentions Arizona, see S

Co., (quoting Hunt v. Erie Ins.

Co., (citations omitted).

Co., (“When specific jurisdiction is at issue, the minimum-contacts inquiry focuses on the relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.”).

Co., , (construing prior Ariz. R. Civ.

Co., , quoting Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 , 104 S.Ct.

Co., , (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 , 104 S.Ct.

Co., , and we address them only briefly.

Co., , quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A.

Co., , see also Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1189 (5th Cir.1985) (if a state’s long-arm rule extends to the limits of due process, the court need only inquire whether asserting jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible).

Co., “it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” , (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct.

Reality tells us that it is time to reexamine some of our previous conclusions, even those in so recent a

Co., , “if a defendant purposefully directs its activities at a particular forum, and the effects of its activities are reasonably foreseeable, jurisdiction is proper because the defendant can reasonably anticipate being called to account for its own actions.” As this statement implies, however

Co., , Taylor v. Fireman’s Fund Ins.