DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite De Reyes v. Marine Mgt. and Consulting, 586 So. 2d 103.

141 citing documents.

  • Southeast Wireless v. US Telemetry 954 So. 2d 120 La. 2007
  • STERIFX, INC. v. Roden 939 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    1868 , 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984); de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Quality Design and Const. v. Tuff Coat Mfg. 939 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    at 2183 ; de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Southeast Wireless Network, Inc. v. U.S. Telemetry Corp. 938 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    In a subsequent case, de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., at 106-107 , the court elaborated on the analysis of long-arm jurisdiction as follows: Where a forum seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has not consented to suit there, the requirement of meaningful contacts is satisfied if the defendant has purposefully 4directed his activities
  • Hayward Williams v. Frank Parra Auto Plex, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    of jurisdiction arises” and “the burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove the assertion of jurisdiction would be so unreasonable in light of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice as to overcome the presumption of reasonableness created by the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum.” de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., (citing 4 Charles A. 4 Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec.
  • Williams v. Frank Parra Auto Plex, Inc. 929 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., (citing 4 Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec.
  • Taylor v. Arellano 928 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., (La.
  • Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 917 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    presumption of reasonableness of jurisdiction arises” and “the burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove the assertion of jurisdiction would be so unreasonable in light of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice as to overcome the presumption of reasonableness created by the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum.” de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., (citing 4 Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec.
  • Edi v. Mit 917 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., (citing 4 Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec.
  • Peters v. Alpharetta Spa, LLC 915 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    2174 ; de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Verstichele v. Marriner 882 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Hubert Verstichele v. Richard A. Marriner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    When a state seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over a defendant, the minimum contracts prong of the due process analysis is satisfied ‘if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum.’ de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., (La.
  • Secretary v. Gap (Apparel), Inc. 886 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Ronald L. Hanks v. Kinetics Group, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    (citing de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., 90-2214 (La.1991), and International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct.
  • Hanks v. Kinetics Group, Inc. 878 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    (citing de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., 90-2214 *786 (La.1991), , and International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct.
  • Brown v. Bumb 871 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • ACG MEDIAWORKS, LLC v. Ford 870 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    A & L Energy, Inc., 00-3255 at 5, 791 So.2d at 1271 ; de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, *1104 Ltd., .
  • Exposition Partner, LLP v. King, LeBlanc & Bland, LLP 869 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    In de Reyes v. Marine Management & Consulting, Ltd., (La.
  • Dahmes v. Champagne Elevators, Inc. 869 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
  • Alonso v. Line 846 So. 2d 745 La. 2003
    de Reyes v. Marine Management & Consulting, Ltd., (citing Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 , 107 S.Ct.
  • Bonilla v. COMMODORE CURISE LINES LTD. 844 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Hallaron v. JACOB'S ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 839 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., 90-2214 (La.1991), , citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320 , 66 S.Ct.
  • Frederic v. Zodiac Development 839 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • Eusea v. Blanchard 836 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • First Nat. Bank of Lewisville v. Jones 811 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Pounds v. Florida Power & Light Co., supra ; deReyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., (La.
  • Sanders v. Sanders 812 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Fuller v. American Recreational Vehicles 801 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • Byers v. Edmondson 807 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Spomer v. Aggressor Intern., Inc. 807 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Dedeaux v. Dymond 792 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    arises” and “the burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove the assertion of | ^jurisdiction would be so unreasonable in light of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice as to overcome the presumption of reasonableness created by the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum.” (Emphasis- Added) Ruckstuhl, supra; de de Reyes v. Marine Management *942 and Consulting, Ltd.
  • A & L ENERGY, INC. v. Pegasus Group 791 So. 2d 1266 La. 2001
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Amin v. Bakhaty 812 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    de Reyes v. Marine Management & Consulting
  • Tulane Indus. Laundry, Inc. v. Quality Lube & Oil, Inc. 779 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Davis v. Dempster, Inc. 790 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    The Louisiana Supreme Court observed in de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., that personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.
  • Curran v. Fisherman Marine Products, Inc. 773 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    When a state seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over a defendant, the minimum contacts prong of the due process analysis is satisfied “if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum.” deReyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 , 104 S.Ct.
  • A & L ENERGY, INC. v. Pegasus Group 771 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Woodard v. University of Utah 776 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Law Offices of Becnel v. Ancale 769 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., citing International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, et al., 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct.
  • Bordelon v. Dehnert 770 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Pounds v. Florida Power & Light Co. 762 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    deReyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Alden v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 760 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Furthermore, general personal jurisdiction must also comport with the notions of fair play and substantial justice, de Reyes v. *434 Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Hagan v. Stone 742 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    citing de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Lentz v. Applegate 739 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    de Reyes v. Marine Management & Consulting
  • Calahan v. Haspel 732 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. 731 So. 2d 881 La. 1999
    de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., (citing 4 Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec.
  • Griffith v. French 723 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    [16] de Reyes v. Marine Management & Consulting
  • Office Dimensions—Louisiana, Inc. v. King 718 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Discussion The leading Louisiana Supreme Court case on personal jurisdiction is de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd.
  • Karim v. Finch Shipping Co., Ltd. 718 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    95 (1945); de Reyes v. Marine Management & Consulting, Ltd., (La.
  • Ciaccio v. Tidewater Crewing Ltd. 716 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Because there was no evidentiary hearing held in this matter, the plaintiffs’ burden of proof on the issue of personal jurisdiction “is relatively slight and allegations of the complaint and all reasonable inferences from the record are to be drawn in favor of [the plaintiffs].” deReyes v. Marine Management & Consulting
  • Cantuba v. American Bureau of Shipping 709 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    95 (1945); de Reyes v. Marine Management & Consulting, Ltd.