Whitley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Summary

The court held that the Calder effects test applies only to intentional-tort claims, so the district court used the wrong test in evaluating jurisdiction over M.W.'s negligence claims. Applying the proper specific-jurisdiction analysis, the court nevertheless concluded that Greyhound purposefully availed itself of Nevada law but that M.W.'s claims did not arise from Greyhound's Nevada contacts. The court therefore affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.