From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vitiello v. I. Kahlowsky Co.

U.S.
Oct 3, 1988
488 U.S. 849 (1988)

Summary

finding that the defendant's contacts did not constitute a "persistent course of conduct" where the defendant sent a representative on one occasion to Maryland, the defendant's ski resort was listed in a commercial publication distributed in the Washington D.C.-Baltimore area, the defendant had a toll-free number accessible to Marylanders, and the defendant sent brochures to Maryland residents and businesses upon request

Summary of this case from Dring v. Sullivan

Opinion

No. 88-54.

October 3, 1988.


C.A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 843 F. 2d 1537:


Summaries of

Vitiello v. I. Kahlowsky Co.

U.S.
Oct 3, 1988
488 U.S. 849 (1988)

finding that the defendant's contacts did not constitute a "persistent course of conduct" where the defendant sent a representative on one occasion to Maryland, the defendant's ski resort was listed in a commercial publication distributed in the Washington D.C.-Baltimore area, the defendant had a toll-free number accessible to Marylanders, and the defendant sent brochures to Maryland residents and businesses upon request

Summary of this case from Dring v. Sullivan

stating that "[t]his Court has consistently stated that the intent of the legislature in enacting Maryland's long arm statute was to expand the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the limits allowed by the Due Process Clause."

Summary of this case from Christian Book Dist. v. Great Christian Books
Case details for

Vitiello v. I. Kahlowsky Co.

Case Details

Full title:VITIELLO ET AL. v. I. KAHLOWSKY Co. ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 3, 1988

Citations

488 U.S. 849 (1988)

Citing Cases

Presbyterian Hosp. v. Wilson

In finding that personal jurisdiction over PUH was proper, the Court of Special Appeals first recognized that…

Olcott v. Delaware Flood Co.

Second, the district court found the Third Circuit's limitations period required a cause of action to be…