Washington
Equipment Manufacturing Co. v. Concrete Placing
85
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 court’s dismissal.
Notes
and Problems
1. It would seem
that the plaintiff can either sue in
2. Okay!
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 that’s 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, we’re 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.
Back to The Modern
Constitutional Formulation of Power