Legal Opinion

REMF Corp. v. Miranda

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided January 8, 2004No. 02-P-705PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

We rehearse the essential ingredients for exercising personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. The inquiry is twofold. We look first to see whether the plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of establishing sufficient facts to support the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendants under the long-arm statute, G. L. c. 223A, § 3. See Good Hope Indus., Inc. v. Ryder Scott Co., 378 Mass. 1, 2 (1979); Carlson Corp. v. University of Vt., 380 Mass. 102, 105 (1980). Those facts, as set forth by the motion judge and supplemented by uncontested statements in the materials, are…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Milliken v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. Good Hope Industries, Inc. v. Ryder Scott Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  4. Droukas v. Divers Training Academy, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
  5. "Automatic" Sprinkler Corp. of America v. Seneca Foods Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Roberts v. Legendary Marine SalesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
  2. Lamarche v. LussierMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2006
  3. Intech, Inc. v. Triple" C" Marine Salvage, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
  4. Berry v. CookMassachusetts Superior Court · 2011
  5. Roberts v. Legendary Marine SalesMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2005

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API