Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, Justice.
This case raises the question of what contacts a defendant must have with Minnesota before pur courts can exercise specific.'personal jurisdiction over that defendant. Appellant -MoneyMutual, LLC, claims that the district court erred when it concluded that it could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over MoneyMutual based on MoneyMutual’s email correspondence with Minnesota residents and advertising in Minnesota. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that specific personal jurisdiction existed. We granted MoneyMutual’s petition…
2Cases cited44 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
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Lee Michael Pederson v. Phillip FrostCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2020
- Tricarichi v. Cooperative Rabobank, U.A.Nevada Supreme Court · 2019
- Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
- Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2018
- McCarty v. McCartySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2015
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.