Not retroactive to judgments rendered before effective date of passage. 160 C. 53. Cited. 170 C. 567, 578; 182 Conn. 14. The term “transacts any business” embraces a single purposeful business transaction; the execution of a warranty deed in Iowa concerning property in Connecticut constitutes transacting business within the state. 184 C. 471. Cited. 189 C. 162; 190 C. 48; 195 Conn. 191; 197 C. 34; 206 Conn. 125; Id., 374; 212 Conn. 311; 224 C. 730; 230 C. 472; 236 C. 602. Cited. 1 Conn.App. 123; 16 CA 619; 23 CA 287; 31 Conn.App. 569; 46 CA 799. Where defendant was hired to practice law in New York, accepted contract in New York, and had no personnel, offices or assets in Connecticut, there was no conduct demonstrating a business transaction within the state. 121 CA 366. Out-of-state defendant signed and mailed contract with personal check to plaintiff in this state and purposefully entered into a contract with a Connecticut business that was to perform and deliver services to defendant from this state, therefore contract constituted business in this state. 146 CA 341. Subsec. (c) does not require that defendant receive the documents constituting process in order for service to be effective. 175 CA 757. Cited. 30 CS 16. Under section, jurisdiction obtained by service on the executor of a Florida estate is valid where the nonresident decedent, were he alive, would be subject to personal jurisdiction. 31 CS 417. Service pursuant to section upon a nonresident who was a resident at the time he rendered the services complained of held valid. Id., 429. A Maryland business trust cannot be served as an entity, but it can be sued through service upon its officers and agents. 32 Conn.Supp. 124. Cited. 33 Conn.Supp. 562; 40 Conn.Supp. 15; Id., 327; 42 CS 25; 44 CS 400. Defendant’s initiation of and engagement in numerous telephone conversations with plaintiff for its services in obtaining Super Bowl tickets constituted transaction of business within Connecticut for purpose of vesting court with personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to state long arm statute, notwithstanding plaintiff’s actual delivery of tickets to defendant in Florida. 47 CS 476. Subsec. (a): Subdiv. (1): Preparation of Connecticut income tax return, along with New York and federal income tax returns, is not sufficient to provide court with personal jurisdiction over New York accountant who performed services exclusively in New York, especially since claim against accountant relates to negligent preparation of New York income tax returns; plaintiff seeking personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual must present evidence satisfying the “substantial revenue” requirement of Subdiv. (3)(B). 282 C. 109. In action to recover on a commercial note, where defendant’s wife arranged for forwarding of mail and defendant is amenable to service of process under statute, statute of limitations was not tolled by defendant’s absence from the country. 287 C. 379. Subdiv. (1): A host agreeing to provide lodging and transportation to guests previously unknown to her in return for money from the guests constitutes a purposeful business transaction. 303 C. 737. Subdiv. (1): The phrase “transacts any business” embraces a single purposeful business transaction. 108 CA 731. The general long arm jurisdiction provisions of section apply to foreign limited liability companies, rather than the corporation specific long arm jurisdiction provisions in Sec. 33-929. 149 CA 513. “Substantial revenue” requirement of Subdiv. (3)(B) means enough revenue to indicate a commercial impact in the forum. 174 CA 368. Subdiv. (1): Although copies of contract attached to complaint showed requirement of out-of-state acceptance, complaint need not contain all facts and circumstances bearing on its allegation of “transacting business in this state”, so motion to erase based on Sec. 33-397(b)(5) should have been denied; plea in abatement would allow proper formulation of issue. 33 CS 628. Subdiv. (2): Conclusion of trial court that allegation of false representation stated cause of action for “tortious act” was equally applicable to allegation of deceptive trade practice under Sec. 42-115d(a) and allegation based on confusion caused by use of corporate name; fact that these acts involved formation of contract in no way mitigates their tortious character. Id. Subdiv. (1) does not incorporate a “fiduciary shield doctrine” that protects individual from personal jurisdiction if his dealings in the forum state were solely in a corporate capacity. 47 CS 319. Personal jurisdiction under Subdiv. (2) existed because the posting by a nonresident of a threatening Internet video specifically targeting a Connecticut resident can be deemed a tortious act committed in this state, and such personal jurisdiction does not violate due process. 51 CS 212.

See Sec. 52-57a re service of process beyond state borders upon persons domiciled or subject to jurisdiction of Connecticut courts.