Cited by

1 (2024), 8 “extend[s] the personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution allows.” d 408, 410 (Minn. 1992).

allows.” see also Minn. Stat. § 543.19 (2024) (long-arm statute).

or individual “commits any act in Minnesota causing injury or property damage” or, subject to certain exceptions, “ commits any act outside Minnesota causing injury or property damage in Minnesota.” This provision is expansive, “extend[ing] the personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution allows.” –11 (Minn. 1992).

The personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts over a nonresident defendant is governed by Minnesota’s long-arm statute, Minn. Stat. § 543.19 (2022), which “extend[s] the personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution allows.”

The personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts over nonresident defendants is governed by Minnesota’s long-arm statute, Minn. Stat. § 543.19 (2022), which “extend[s] the personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution allows.” see also Bandemer, d at 749 (stating that the personal jurisdiction 6 requirement limits the state’s ability “to exercise its coercive power by asserting jurisdiction over non- resident defendants” ); U.S. Const. amend.

-11 (Minn. 1992); see Minn. Stat. § 543.19 (2022) (Minnesota’s long-arm statute).

6 The personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts over a nonresident defendant is governed by Minnesota’s long-arm statute, Minn. Stat. § 543.19 (2020), which “extend[s] the personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution allows.”

1 (2020); see also Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp. , (concluding that the stat e’s long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction to the full extent allo wed by the Due Process Clause).

Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp. , , 410-11 (Minn. 1992).

21, 2004); 1 (Minn. 1992) (“If the personal jurisdiction requirements of the federal constitution are met, the requirements of [Minnesota’s] long -arm statute will necessarily be met also.”).

“ If the personal jurisdiction requirements of the federal constitution are me t, the requirements of the long-arm statute will necessarily be met also.”

To determine whether jurisdiction exists Minnesota courts may look to federal law and “the inquiry collapses into the single question of whether exercise of personal jurisdiction 4 comports with due process.” Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids, Inc., 22 F.2d 816, 818 (8th Cir. 1994)

ng-arm statute, Minn. Stat. § 543.19 (2014), provides that personal jurisdiction shall not be found over a nonresident defendant if it would “violate fairness and substantial justice.” We have held that Minnesota’s long-arm statute “extend[s] the personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution allows.”

(noting that “the long-arm statute [] extend[s] the personal jurisdiction of 4 Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution allows”).

“[T]he legislature designed the long-arm statute to extend the personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution allows.”

“In a close case, trial courts should resolve doubts in favor of retention of personal jurisdiction.”

“[The supreme court] has repeatedly held that the legislature designed the long-arm statute to extend the personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process clause of the federal constitution allows.” (stating that “when analyzing most personal jurisdiction questions, Minnesota courts may simply apply the federal case law,” id.