Legal Opinion
CSR, Ltd. v. Taylor
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided November 16, 2009No. 129, September Term, 2008PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGreene, J.
This case requires us to determine whether the Circuit Court for Baltimore City would have been justified in exercising in personam jurisdiction over Petitioner, Colonial Sugar Refining Co., Ltd. (“CSR”), an Australian business entity, under the circumstances presented in this case. Andrea Taylor and Mary Fuchsluger (collectively, “Respondents”) are the personal representatives of the estates of two former *464stevedores who worked at the Port of Baltimore (“Port”) and who allegedly contracted mesothelioma from the offloading of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Respondents attribute…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Dynacorp Ltd. v. Aramtel Ltd.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2012
- Pinnacle Grp., LLC v. KellyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2018
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SternCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
- Stisser v. SP Bancorp, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2017
- Planet Technologies, Inc. v. Planit Technology Group, LLCDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2010
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.