Whether the Nevada Supreme Court correctly held that a State may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant where the defendant does not live or work in the State, and the relevant conduct occurred overseas, merely because the defendant 'aimed' his conduct at a resident of a State and was an officer of a corporation organized in the State?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Due Process Clause permits a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the plaintiffs claims “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s forum activities. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985). The question presented is: Whether the Nevada Supreme Court, in conflict with this Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), and with decisions of the Texas Supreme Court, the Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits, correctly held that a State may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant where the defendant does not live or work in the State, and the relevant conduct occurred overseas, merely because the defendant “aimed” his conduct at a resident of a State and was an officer of a corporation organized in the State?