Equipment Manufacturing Co. v. Concrete Placing
Yeazell, pp. 148-149
Facts: The defendant corporation
is based in
Issue: Did the defendant consent to general personal jurisdiction when it got the certificate and registered an agent?
Rule: NEW RULE!† In
Analysis: The court analyzes the statute and finds that the legislature chose to impose personal jurisdiction on foreign corporations in some cases, but not in others, including the present case.
Conclusion: The appellate court upheld the trial courtís dismissal.
Notes and Problems
1. It would seem
that the plaintiff can either sue in
3. I would guess that if the constitutional cases had been grossly misinterpreted, the case would have been further appealed.† Maybe it was.
a. It seems as though the realm of personal jurisdiction is filled with fictions, like constructive notice (but maybe thatís no good anymore).
b. The note certainly suggests that a statute written to give Washington general jurisdiction over any corporation that seeks to do business within its borders would not stand up to constitutional scrutiny.† Among other problems, I would wonder if such a statute could be held to be an unconstitutional barrier to interstate trade.
c. First of all, Hess
was a pre-Shoe but
post-Pennoyer ruling.† The claim in Hess was very closely
related to the contact (although, again, weíre in a pre-minimum contacts
world).† The Supreme Court changed the
rules to make Pennoyer fit contemporary society.† Also, it was not nearly as impractical for Washington
Equipment to travel to
4. It would seem that, going all the way back to Pennoyer, you can always serve someone process if they are physically present within the borders of your state.