This preview shows page 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-76-77-78-79-80-81-82-83-84-85-152-153-154-155-156-157-158-159-160-161-162 out of 162 pages.
Fifty-State Survey Long-Arm StatutesLong-Arm Statutes:A Fifty-State SurveyVEDDER, PRICE, KAUFMAN & KAMMHOLZ, P.C.Chicago222 North LaSalle StreetChicago, Illinois 60601312/609-7500New York805 Third AvenueNew York, New York 10022212/407-7700New Jersey354 Eisenhower Parkway, Plaza IILivingston, New Jersey 07039973/597-1100www.vedderprice.comFifty-State Survey Long-Arm StatutesLong-Arm Statutes:A Fifty-State SurveyTable of ContentsPreface 1Long-Arm Statutes 2Vedder Price Litigation Practice 3© 2003 Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, P.C. All Rights Reserved.Fifty-State Survey Long-Arm StatutesPrefaceI. BackgroundOne of the first and most important issues a civil defendant faces in any case iswhether it is subject to the forum court’s jurisdiction and, if a good-faith argumentcan be made that it is not, whether to challenge the court’s assertion of personaljurisdiction. This Handbook addresses the requirements applicable to a state court’sexercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident party to a lawsuit. Not onlymust a court have subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim, but it also must havepersonal jurisdiction over the parties. State long-arm statutes often determinewhether a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.Absent personal jurisdiction, a court will not have the power to adjudicate aplaintiff’s action against a defendant.The “minimum contacts” test essentially assesses the extent of a defendant’slinks with the jurisdiction in which the case is filed in order to determine whetherthe defendant can be forced to defend against the action in a jurisdiction in whichthey do not reside. Within the last five decades, the law governing personaljurisdiction has changed substantially. From Pennoyer v. Neff to International ShoeCo. v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court has established many of the basicprinciples surrounding the “minimum contacts” test for a court’s exercise of personaljurisdiction. Variations of the basic test have been legislated through state long-arm statutes, judicial interpretations of those statutes, and federal due processrequirements. More recent advancements in commerce and communications havefurther impacted this issue.Courts addressing this issue today generally ask two questions: (1) Does astate or federal procedural rule or statute exist that provides for jurisdiction underthe alleged facts and circumstances of the case? and (2) If so, are the proceduraldue process requirements of the respective state and federal constitutionssufficiently met? This Handbook addresses the first question.With respect to procedural rules governing personal jurisdiction, most stateshave enacted long-arm statutes that set forth specific grounds upon which statecourts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Each long-arm statute has different requirements. Ultimately, whether any of the requirementscan be met will be determined based upon the facts of each case. In particular, thisHandbook addresses each state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant where jurisdiction has been alleged based upon a defendant’sbreach of contract, its having committed a business tort, or its cyberspace or Internetcontacts with the forum state.iFifty-State Survey Long-Arm StatutesII. Using the HandbookThe Handbook is divided by state and then each state is subdivided into twosections, the first setting forth the relevant language of each state’s long-arm statute,and the second citing case law applying the statute to specific factual scenarios.Within the second section, we examine four issues. First, we note the seminal caseor cases in each state interpreting the extent and constitutionality of the state’slong-arm statute. Unless otherwise noted, these cases are from the state’s highestcourt. Second, we set forth key case law addressing the state’s long-arm statute inrelation to breach of contract actions. Third, we note key case law addressing thestate’s long-arm statute in relation to tortious activity involving business personsor entities. Finally, we examine key case law addressing how the state’s courtstreat Internet transactions and contacts in making their personal jurisdictiondecisions.The citations contained herein are reported as of July 2003. Note, however,that long-arm statutes may be amended from time to time, and courts interpretingthose statutes may be reversed or later overruled by either subsequent statutoryenactment or court decision. Therefore, readers are strongly cautioned to contacttheir attorney to discuss the specific facts of each case, the applicable long-armstatute and relevant case law that may control.DISCLAIMERThis Handbook shall not be construed as the rendering of legal advice or servicesin any jurisdiction by Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, P.C. It should notbe used or relied upon as a substitute for legal research, advice or analysis. Inno event should this Handbook be relied upon in forming any decision regardingthe existence of personal jurisdiction over a party with respect to any particulardispute, action or claim.iiFifty-State Survey Long-Arm StatutesTable of StatesMontana........................................75Nebraska .......................................77Nevada ..........................................79New Hampshire .............................81New Jersey ....................................83New Mexico ..................................87New York .......................................89North Carolina ...............................91North Dakota.................................95Ohio ..............................................98Oklahoma ....................................100Oregon ........................................ 114Pennsylvania............................... 119Puerto Rico..................................123Rhode Island ............................... 125South Carolina.............................126South Dakota ..............................128Tennessee ................................... 130Texas ...........................................132Utah ............................................134Vermont .......................................136Virginia ........................................ 138Washington ................................ 141West Virginia ...............................143Wisconsin ...................................147Wyoming.....................................
View Full Document
Unlocking...