Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 250-51, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958))); McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222-23, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957) (noting a trend "expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations ... [i]n part ... attributable to the fundamental transformation of our national economy over the years,” including a "great increase in the amount of business conducted by mail across state lines”). 4 . See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 572 (noting that a defendant’s mail-order sales to forum residents may satisfy the "continuous and systematic” standard (citing Sollinger v. Nasco Int'l, Inc., 655 F.Supp. 1385 (D.Vt.1987))); Michigan Nat’l Bank v. Quality Dinette, Inc., 888 F.2d 462, 466 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); cf. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a ceos trip to the forum state to negotiate a services contract did not constitute the continuous and systematic general business contacts required to subject the corporation to general jurisdiction in the state (B) recognizing general jurisdiction where availment is systematic and continuous (C) holding that the court must look for continuous and systematic general business contacts  ie general jurisdiction  if the causes of action do not arise from or relate to the foreign defendants contacts with the forum state (D) holding that thirteen business trips of short duration over eighteen months was not continuous and systematic solicitation of business in the state to justify general jurisdiction (E) holding that inter alia appellees mail order solicitations of michigan businesses and the fact that they made at least one sale in michigan each and every month for two years indicate that appellees have conducted a continuous and systematic part of their general business in michigan  thereby warranting general personal jurisdiction
Output (English): holding that a ceos trip to the forum state to negotiate a services contract did not constitute the continuous and systematic general business contacts required to subject the corporation to general jurisdiction in the state