| dbo:abstract |
CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson was a court case heard before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which held that contacts and contracts negotiated through the Internet with a party in a different state were sufficient to grant personal jurisdiction in that state.In particular, the court held that Patterson's use of storage, electronic transmission of files, and advertisement through CompuServe's network in Ohio were sufficient to grant Ohio personal jurisdiction over Patterson. (en) |
| dbo:wikiPageID |
37935191 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength |
6895 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID |
725169825 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink |
dbr:Cybersell,_Inc._v._Cybersell,_Inc. dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Ohio dbr:Declaratory_judgment dbr:Internet dbr:Internet_service_provider dbr:Personal_jurisdiction_in_internet_cases_in_the_United_States dbc:United_States_Internet_case_law dbr:CompuServe dbr:Cornelia_Groefsema_Kennedy dbr:Long-arm_jurisdiction dbr:Common_law dbr:Personal_jurisdiction dbr:Bailey_Brown dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit_cases dbc:United_States_contract_case_law dbr:Trademarks dbc:1996_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Remand_(court_procedure) dbr:Harry_W._Wellford dbc:CompuServe dbr:Texas dbc:United_States_computer_case_law dbr:Ohio dbr:Oral_argument_in_the_United_States dbr:Shareware dbr:Personal_jurisdiction_in_Internet_cases_in_the_United_States dbr:Zippo_Manufacturing_Co._v._Zippo_Dot_Com,_Inc. dbr:Motion_to_dismiss dbr:Purposeful_availment |
| dbp:appealedFrom |
dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Ohio |
| dbp:citations |
25920.0 (dbd:second) |
| dbp:court |
dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit |
| dbp:dateDecided |
1996-07-22 (xsd:date) |
| dbp:decisionBy |
dbr:Bailey_Brown |
| dbp:judges |
dbr:Cornelia_Groefsema_Kennedy dbr:Bailey_Brown dbr:Harry_W._Wellford |
| dbp:keywords |
dbr:Personal_jurisdiction_in_internet_cases_in_the_United_States dbr:Personal_jurisdiction |
| dbp:name |
CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson (en) |
| dbp:numberOfJudges |
3 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:opinions |
The order granting Patterson's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was reversed because Patterson had sufficient contacts with Ohio through storing his software and utilizing CompuServe's advertisement network to grant personal jurisdiction. (en) |
| dbp:priorActions |
The District court granted the defendant's motion for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction (en) |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate |
dbt:One_source dbt:Reflist dbt:Start_date dbt:Infobox_court_case |
| dct:subject |
dbc:United_States_Internet_case_law dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit_cases dbc:United_States_contract_case_law dbc:1996_in_United_States_case_law dbc:CompuServe dbc:United_States_computer_case_law |
| rdf:type |
yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity |
| rdfs:comment |
CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson was a court case heard before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which held that contacts and contracts negotiated through the Internet with a party in a different state were sufficient to grant personal jurisdiction in that state.In particular, the court held that Patterson's use of storage, electronic transmission of files, and advertisement through CompuServe's network in Ohio were sufficient to grant Ohio personal jurisdiction over Patterson. (en) |
| rdfs:label |
CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson (en) |
| owl:sameAs |
freebase:CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson wikidata:CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4hpUC |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom |
wikipedia-en:CompuServe,_Inc._v._Patterson?oldid=725169825&ns=0 |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf |
wikipedia-en:CompuServe,_Inc._v._Patterson |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of |
dbr:CompuServe |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of |
wikipedia-en:CompuServe,_Inc._v._Patterson |