§

Illinois Commerce Commission v. Entergykoch Trading, LP

362 Ill. App. 3d 790 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)
Illinois Commerce Commission v. Entergykoch Trading, LP

5 Citing cases

  1. Sabados v. Planned Parenthood of Greater Indiana

    378 Ill. App. 3d 243 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 19 times

    A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie basis for exercising a court's in personam jurisdiction over a defendant. Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. Entergy-Koch Trading, LP, 362 Ill. App. 3d 790, 795 (2005). A plaintiffs prima facie case may be rebutted where a defendant presents uncontradicted evidence that defeats jurisdiction.

  2. Hanson v. Ahmed

    382 Ill. App. 3d 941 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 17 times
    In Hanson, the First District ruled that two telephone calls initiated by an insurance claims adjuster in Illinois did not confer an Illinois court with jurisdiction over two Missouri defendants.

    The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Commerce Trust Co. v. Air 1st Aviation Cos., 366 Ill. App. 3d 135, 140, 851 N.E.2d 131 (2006); Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. Entergy-Koch Trading, LP, 362 Ill. App. 3d 790, 795, 841 N.E.2d 27 (2005). However, the plaintiff's prima facie case may be overcome by uncontradicted evidence that defeats jurisdiction.

  3. Isringhausen v. Prime Contractors

    378 Ill. App. 3d 1059 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 17 times
    Stating that "[p]resumably, the choice-of-law provision is relevant because foreseeability on the defendant's part is central to the determination of whether personal jurisdiction would be reasonable and fair under the circumstances"

    In determining whether jurisdiction is proper over a nonresident defendant, we must evaluate the following: (1) whether jurisdiction is proper under the specific language of the long-arm statute; and (2) whether jurisdiction is permissible under the notions of due process. Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. Entergy-Koch Trading, LP, 362 Ill. App. 3d 790, 796, 841 N.E.2d 27, 33 (2005), citing Rollins v. Elwood, 141 Ill. 2d 244, 271, 565 N.E.2d 1302, 1314 (1990). An exercise of personal jurisdiction under the provisions of the long-arm statute (in this case sections 2-209(a)(7) and 2-209(c)) must comport with the due-process clause of the United States Constitution. Commercial Coin Laundry Systems v. Loon Investments, LLC, 375 Ill. App. 3d 26, 29-30, 871 N.E.2d 898, 901 (2007).

  4. In re Proceeding to Enforce Judgment Against Nat'l Partitions, Inc.

    No. E2016-00339-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    The location of the actual parties in a transaction or to a contract and the formation of the relevant contract are rarely dispositive of whether a defendant indeed transacted business in Illinois, seeing as much of modern business is transacted by mail and electronic communications across state lines." Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. Entergy-Koch Trading, LP, 841 N.E.2d 27, 34 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985)). As discussed above, there was a contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs and NP that endured for over two years.

  5. M.M. ex rel. Meyers v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC

    2016 Ill. App. 151909 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 9 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Agreeing with plaintiffs' contention that "in the context of specific personal jurisdiction, whether the Illinois contacts are meaningful depends entirely on their relation to the Plaintiffs' causes of action, and not at all on a percentage-based comparison between how much related conduct occurred outside of Illinois"

    Knaus v. Guidry, 389 Ill.App.3d 804, 814, 329 Ill.Dec. 446, 906 N.E.2d 644 (2009) ; MacNeil, 401 Ill.App.3d at 1081, 342 Ill.Dec. 314, 932 N.E.2d 441 ; see also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). ¶ 43 “In the context of corporations, specific jurisdiction may be asserted when the suit directly arises out of or is connected to the defendant's purportedly wrongful acts within the forum state” (Sabados v. Planned Parenthood of Greater Indiana, 378 Ill.App.3d 243, 248, 317 Ill.Dec. 547, 882 N.E.2d 121 (2007) (citing Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. Entergy–Koch Trading, LP, 362 Ill.App.3d 790, 796, 298 Ill.Dec. 884, 841 N.E.2d 27 (2005) )) such that it is reasonable to require the defendant to litigate in that state.