Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Williams v. Lakeview Co., 13 P.3d 280.

67 citing documents.

Sigmund v. Rea 248 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd. 230 P.3d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd. 230 P.3d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 7 , Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 416 (9th Cir.1997).
Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger 224 P.3d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger 224 P.3d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
For a state to have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the defendant must “have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” , citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320 , 66 S.Ct.
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 6 , (“A non-resident defendant is subject to general jurisdiction when the defendant’s contacts with the forum state are substantial or continuous and systematic enough that the defendant may be haled into court in the forum, even for claims unrelated to the defendant’s contacts with the
Bohreer v. Erie Insurance Exchange 165 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Bohreer v. Erie Insurance Exchange 165 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(discussing need for minimum contacts under long-arm statute for purposes of specific or general jurisdiction).
In Re Estate of Rodriguez 160 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Estate of Rodriguez 160 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Bentley v. Zensano, Inc. 127 P.3d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Bentley v. Zensano, Inc. 127 P.3d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
4-5 n. 2 ¶ 13, , 283-84 n. 2 (2000) (The court would not assume, without additional evidence, that a decision to employ or offer hotel services to Arizona residents showed a purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting business in Arizona.).
Austin v. CrystalTech Web Hosting 125 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Austin v. CrystalTech Web Hosting 125 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 416 (9th Cir.1997) (citing Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir.1995)); ¶ 7