HomeMy WebLinkAbout0872 i
i
ance or rejection. The State of Washington sued to levy an unemploy-
ment tax on the Shoe Company without personal service on Defendant.
The United States Supreme Court said:
"2. Due process, where an action
may be commenced by personal service _
of summons or other form of notice,
does-not require, in order to subject
a defendant to a judgment in personam,
that he be present within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court, if he have
such contacts with the territorial
forum that the maintenance of the suit
does not offend traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice."
Thus was born a new problem to the law that of "MINIMUt! COP7TACTS."
(An analogy is trying to define a "REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEE:" Both
have and will continue to breed litigation "ad infinitum.")
For the last thirty-five years the Courts have struggled with
the meaning of "minimum contacts" and the further phrase coined in that
case of "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
~~ow you can see what was bothering "minority Justices Blackmun and
Marshall" referred to earlier in this opinion.
That brings us to Blackmun's minority opinion and White's
majority opinion in the United States Supreme Court case going on
while we were debating the same issue in.Fort Pierce, Florida. This
is the three month old United States Supreme Court case of World-Wide
Volkswagen v. Woodson, 100 S.Ct. 559 (1980). The facts in that case
were that Mr. and dirs. Robinson bought an Audi car from New York
Wolkswagen dealer and drove it through Olkahoma on the way to their
new home in Arizona. In Oklahoma the Audi was hit from the rear and
Mrs. Robinson et al were severely burned. The Robinsons' brought a
products liability action against the New York dealer and Volkswagen
in Oklahoma under Oklahoma's long arm statute. Defendants said there
were no minimum contacts in Oklahoma (since no dealerships, agents,
etc, existed there) and the Oklahoma Court had no personal service on
Defendants. The United States Supreme Court (as mentioned before).
e
agreed, stating:
"...(4-7) As has long been settled,
and as we reaffirm today, a state court
may exercise personal jurisdiction over
a nonresident defendant only so long as
there exist "minimum contacts" between
the defendant and the forum State.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
supra, at 316, 66 S.Ct., at 158. The
- 9- ~ p~ ~ i
- -
-.-F