- 928 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

Roth Grading, Inc., doing busines

Roller Technology, a Nebraska corpor

appellant, v. Martin Brothers Constru

a California corporation, appell

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 29, 2018. No. A-17-097.

1. Motions to Dismiss: Jurisdiction: Pleadings. When a trial court relies 

solely on pleadings and supporting affidavits in ruling on a motion to 

dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a 

prima facie showing of jurisdiction to survive the motion.

2. Jurisdiction: Rules of the Supreme Court: Pleadings: Appeal and 

Error. When reviewing an order dismissing a party from a case for 

lack of personal jurisdiction under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(2), an 

appellate court examines the question of whether the nonmoving party 

has established a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction de novo.

3. Motions to Dismiss: Appeal and Error. In reviewing the grant of a 

motion to dismiss, an appellate court must look at the facts in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all factual conflicts 

in favor of that party.

4. Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. Personal jurisdiction is the power 

of a tribunal to subject and bind a particular person or entity to its 

decisions.

5. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: Due Process: Service of Process: 

States. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution bars a court from exercising personal jurisdiction over an 

out-of-state defendant, served with process outside the state, unless that 

defendant has sufficient ties to the forum state.

6. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: Statutes: Due Process: States. A 

two-step analysis is used to determine whether a Nebraska court may 

validly exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. 

First, a court must consider whether Nebraska’s long-arm statute, Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 25-536 (Reissue 2016), authorizes the exercise of personal 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

05/29/2018 09:08 AM CDT
- 929 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

jurisdiction over the defendant. Second, a court must consider whether 

the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with 

due process.

7. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: Statutes: Due Process. If a 

Nebraska court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport with 

the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, it is authorized by the 

long-arm statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-536 (Reissue 2016).

8. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: Due Process: States: Words and 

Phrases. To satisfy the Due Process Clause, a court may only exercise 

personal jurisdiction over a defendant that is not present in the forum 

state if that defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that 

the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair 

play and substantial justice. To constitute sufficient minimum contacts 

with the forum, the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum 

state must be such that he or she should reasonably anticipate being 

haled into court there.

9. Jurisdiction: States. Whether a defendant’s contacts with the forum 

state are sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction will 

vary with the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is 

essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant 

purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities 

within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of 

its laws.

10. ____: ____. Personal jurisdiction is proper where the defendant’s contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself or herself 

that create a substantial connection with the forum state.

11. Jurisdiction: States: Words and Phrases. General, or all-purpose, 

jurisdiction arises where a defendant’s affiliations with the forum state 

are continuous and systematic.

12. Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. Specific, or case-linked, jurisdiction 

requires that a claim arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts 

with the forum.

13. ____: ____. With regard to specific personal jurisdiction, there must be 

a substantial connection between the defendant’s contacts and the operative facts of the litigation.

14. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: States. Nebraska’s long-arm statute, 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-536 (Reissue 2016), extends Nebraska’s jurisdiction over nonresidents having any contact with or maintaining any relation to this state as far as the U.S. Constitution permits.

15. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. The benchmark for determining if the exercise of personal jurisdiction satisfies due process is 

whether the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum state are 
- 930 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into 

court there.

16. Jurisdiction: States. Whether a defendant’s contacts with the forum 

state are sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction will 

vary with the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is 

essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant 

purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities 

within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of 

its laws.

17. ____: ____. Personal jurisdiction is proper where the defendant’s contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself or herself 

that create a substantial connection with the forum state.

18. Jurisdiction: States: Contracts: Parties. To determine whether a 

defendant’s contract supplies the contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction in a forum state, a court is to consider the parties’ prior negotiations and future contemplated consequences, along with the terms of the 

contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing.

19. Jurisdiction: Contracts: States. The existence of a contract with a 

party in a forum state or the mere use of interstate facilities, such as 

telephones and mail, does not, in and of itself, provide the necessary 

contacts for personal jurisdiction.

20. ____: ____: ____. The existence of a contract and the use of interstate 

communications may be considered in an overall personal jurisdiction analysis.

21. Jurisdiction: Parties. When considering the issue of personal jurisdiction, a court will consider the prior negotiations between the parties and 

contemplated consequences, and if a substantial connection is created, 

even a single contact can support jurisdiction.

22. Jurisdiction. An ongoing relationship, by itself, is not sufficient to 

establish personal jurisdiction.

23. Jurisdiction: States. In analyzing personal jurisdiction, a court must 

first establish whether there are necessary minimum contacts with 

Nebraska, and then, if such minimum contacts have been established, 

the contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine 

whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair 

play and substantial justice.

Appeal from the District Court for Cass County: Paul W.

Korslund, Judge, Retired. Affirme

Aaron F. Smeall, of Smith, Slusky, Pohren & Rogers, L.L.P., 

for appellant.
- 931 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

Patrick T. Vint and Todd W. Weidemann, of Woods & 

Aitken, L.L.P., for appellee.

Pirtle, Bishop, and Arterburn, Jud

Bishop, Judge

INTRODUCTION

Roth Grading, Inc., a Nebraska corporation doing business 

as Impact Roller Technology (IRT), agreed to sell equipment to 

Martin Brothers Construction (Martin Brothers), a California 

corporation. After Martin Brothers refused to take delivery of 

the equipment, IRT brought a breach of contract action against 

Martin Brothers in the district court for Cass County. IRT 

appeals from the district court’s dismissal of the action for lack 

of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Martin Brothers’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction was considered on the pleadings filed and the 

affidavits submitted to the district court; they provide the following facts: IRT is a Nebraska corporation, with a principal 

place of business in Plattsmouth, Nebraska. Martin Brothers 

is a California corporation, with a principal place of business in Sacramento, California. IRT’s principal product is the 

“Impactor,” a heavy piece of equipment which employs a large 

rotating drum to “break concrete, perform soil compaction, and 

perform similar tasks for contractors in the construction and 

mining industries.” On July 29, 2016, IRT received an information request on its website from Felipe Martin, the president 

of Martin Brothers.

 Scott Roth, the president of IRT, spoke with Martin via 

telephone on August 1, 2016. Martin informed Roth he was 

interested in purchasing one of IRT’s Impactors, but wanted 

to make sure it could be on site for a project by August 17. 

Roth assured Martin an Impactor was available and could be 

delivered. Roth and Martin discussed having a “price quote” 

emailed to Martin Brothers, and Roth emailed a quote for 
- 932 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

$143,400 that same day. This was a discounted purchase price 

of $138,600, plus $4,800 for shipping from Plattsmouth to 

Sacramento.

Subsequent conversations took place, but specific dates are 

not provided. In one conversation, Martin informed Roth he 

wanted to get a freight price from his own trucking company 

to see if he could save on the $4,800 shipping price quoted. 

Greg Aguilera, equipment manager for Martin Brothers, called 

Roth and asked for the shipping specifications. In a subsequent 

call, Aguilera informed Roth that Martin Brothers could save 

$1,000 on shipping with their own trucking company. The parties eventually agreed that IRT would ship the Impactor, but 

would discount the shipping cost by $1,000. Aguilera and Roth 

also discussed Martin Brothers’ obtaining a tractor to pull the 

Impactor. In a subsequent call, Aguilera informed Roth that he 

had found a tractor that could be rented for $2,500 per month 

and that “he was happy with that price.” Aguilera also advised 

that Martin Brothers had an equipment leasing company that 

might be able to rent out the Impactor to other parties in 

the future.

On August 5, 2016, Roth emailed to Martin Brothers a 

“Contract Purchase Order,” which reflected the $1,000 shipping discount, and was signed by Roth on that date. A project 

engineer at Martin Brothers subsequently called Roth and 

advised him that Martin Brothers was signing the purchase 

contract and that he wanted to know if it could be emailed 

back to the same email address that was used to send it. Roth 

advised the project engineer that emailing the signed purchase 

contract back to the same email address would be fine, and he 

thanked him for the business.

On August 9, 2016, the project engineer emailed back the 

purchase contract, signed by Martin as president of Martin 

Brothers and hand dated August 9. The email stated, “‘[Roth], 

See attached signed purchase order for the Impactor 3000h. Let 

me know if you need anything else.’” The “.pdf file” attached 

to the August 9 email contained the “IRT Contract Purchase 
- 933 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

Order” signed by both parties. It also included, after the signed 

purchase contract, an unsigned and untitled document. The 

email did not reference the document that appeared after the 

signed purchase contract.

While IRT was making preparations to ship the Impactor, 

Roth received a call from Martin on August 16, 2016, in 

which Martin stated that “Martin Brothers no longer wanted an 

Impactor, citing some difficulties with their current project.” 

Roth advised Martin that they already had a signed contract. 

On August 22, Roth sent an email to Martin “expressing concern that Martin Brothers was refusing to take delivery, and 

advising that IRT would consider that a breach of the parties’ 

contract.” Martin responded by email the next day, claiming 

that “they had never received a copy of the purchase order 

executed by Roth” and that “pursuant to their prior conversation, they had ‘cancelled the order.’” A few hours later, Martin 

sent another email stating that “although he did now see that 

Roth had signed the purchase order, that there was a provision in the (unsigned) Martin Brothers document appended 

to the .pdf file with the signed contract that allowed Martin 

Brothers to ‘terminate’ the purchase because the Impactor had 

never been shipped.” Roth emailed Martin Brothers stating 

that IRT had never agreed to any cancellation of the order and 

“would consider that a breach of contract.” In-house counsel 

for Martin Brothers subsequently sent Roth a letter informing 

him that Martin Brothers was refusing to take delivery and 

that it was permitted to do so pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement.

IRT filed a complaint against Martin Brothers on October 

6, 2016, alleging breach of contract. On November 10, Martin 

Brothers filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(2). Martin 

Brothers alleged the following: It was a California corporation “with no continued or systemic presence in Nebraska”; 

it had no continuing relationships or obligations with citizens of Nebraska which would make it subject to regulation 
- 934 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

and sanction by Nebraska; the transaction, to its knowledge, 

was the only transaction Martin Brothers conducted with a 

Nebraska resident; its sole contact with Nebraska was contacting IRT to purchase a piece of equipment that was already 

built; and therefore, its brief and cursory contact is “insufficient to meet the standard of minimum contacts necessary 

so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice necessary to preserve the constitutional right to 

due process.”

Counsel appeared in court on November 28, 2016. Martin 

Brothers offered, and the court received, exhibit 1, the affidavit of the general counsel for the corporation. He averred that 

Martin Brothers does not hold, nor ever sought, a license to 

conduct business in Nebraska; owns no real estate, operates 

no office, and maintains no physical presence in Nebraska; 

and is engaged in no sustained or ongoing business transactions in Nebraska. IRT offered, and the court received, 

exhibit 2, the affidavit of Roth. Roth’s affidavit contained 

the allegations set forth in its complaint, with the facts as 

noted above.

The district court sustained Martin Brothers’ motion to 

dismiss in an order entered on December 30, 2016. The 

court concluded that “[m]erely contracting with a resident 

of Nebraska is insufficient to provide the requisite contact 

to confer personal jurisdiction.” The court further stated that 

“there is no underlying business relationship, only a series of 

communications resulting in a single transaction.” The court 

found that it was “significant that Martin Brothers contacted 

IRT based on IRT’s internet advertising, and therefore IRT 

was the ‘aggressor’ in the transaction.” The court found that 

“[t]here is no relationship between the parties other than the 

single contract involved in this case” and that the “only basis 

for jurisdiction is the series of communications from outside 

Nebraska based on IRT’s internet posting.” Accordingly, the 

court found there was “an insufficient basis for exercise of the 

long-arm statute in this case.” IRT appeals.
- 935 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

IRT assigns that the district court erred by granting Martin 

Brothers’ motion to dismiss.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] When a trial court relies solely on pleadings and 

supporting affidavits in ruling on a motion to dismiss for 

want of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make 

a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to survive the motion. 

RFD-TV v. WildOpenWest Finance, 288 Neb. 318, 849 N.W.2d 

107 (2014).

[2,3] When reviewing an order dismissing a party from a 

case for lack of personal jurisdiction under § 6-1112(b)(2), an 

appellate court examines the question of whether the nonmoving party has established a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction de novo. Nimmer v. Giga Entertainment Media, 298 

Neb. 630, 905 N.W.2d 523 (2018). In reviewing the grant of a 

motion to dismiss, an appellate court must look at the facts in 

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all 

factual conflicts in favor of that party. Id.

ANALYSIS

[4-10] IRT argues the district court erred by granting Martin 

Brothers’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

We begin our analysis with the analytical framework for personal jurisdiction set forth in Hand Cut Steaks Acquisitions v. 

Lone Star Steakhouse, 298 Neb. 705, 905 N.W.2d 644 (2018). 

The Nebraska Supreme Court stated:

Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to 

subject and bind a particular person or entity to its 

decisions. Courts’ ability to validly exercise personal 

jurisdiction is not without limit. The Due Process Clause 

of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars 

a court from exercising personal jurisdiction over an 

out-of-state defendant, served with process outside the 

state, unless that defendant has sufficient ties to the 

forum state.
- 936 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

A two-step analysis is used to determine whether a 

Nebraska court may validly exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. First, a court must 

consider whether Nebraska’s long-arm statute [Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 25-536 (Reissue 2016)] authorizes the 

exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. 

Second, a court must consider whether the exercise of 

personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with 

due process.

Nebraska’s long-arm statute authorizes courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over any person “[w]ho has 

any . . . contact with or maintains any . . . relation to 

this state to afford a basis for the exercise of personal 

jurisdiction consistent with the Constitution of the United 

States.” Thus, if a Nebraska court’s exercise of personal 

jurisdiction would comport with the Due Process Clause 

of the 14th Amendment, it is authorized by the long-arm 

statute. . . .

To satisfy the Due Process Clause, a court may only 

exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant that is 

not present in the forum state if that defendant has 

“minimum contacts” with the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend ‘traditional notions 

of fair play and substantial justice.’” To constitute sufficient minimum contacts, “the defendant’s conduct and 

connection with the forum State [must be] such that 

he [or she] should reasonably anticipate being haled 

into court there.” Whether a defendant’s contacts with 

the forum state are sufficient to support the exercise 

of personal jurisdiction “will vary with the quality and 

nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is essential in 

each case that there be some act by which the defendant 

purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the 

benefits and protections of its laws.” Thus, “[j]urisdiction is proper . . . where the [defendant’s] contacts 
- 937 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

proximately result from actions by the defendant [himself or herself] that create a ‘substantial connection’ 

with the forum State.”

Hand Cut Steaks Acquisitions v. Lone Star Steakhouse, 298 

Neb. at 722-24, 905 N.W.2d at 660-61.

[11] Lone Star Steakhouse also addresses the two categories of personal jurisdiction: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. General, or “all-purpose,” jurisdiction arises 

where a defendant’s affiliations with the forum state are 

continuous and systematic. Id. at 725, 905 N.W.2d at 662. In 

the present case, there is no allegation that Martin Brothers’ 

contacts with Nebraska were so continuous and systematic 

as to give rise to Nebraska having general jurisdiction over 

this California corporation. The facts presented in this case 

do not support a finding of general jurisdiction, and notably, 

IRT does not make such an argument. Instead, IRT argues 

that “[e]ven where, as here, a defendant’s general contacts 

with the forum state may not be substantial, continuous, and 

systematic, ‘specific jurisdiction’ over the defendant may be 

present depending upon the quality and nature of individual 

contact with the plaintiff.” Brief for appellant at 11 (emphasis 

in original).

[12-14] Specific, or case-linked, jurisdiction requires that 

a claim arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts 

with the forum. Hand Cut Steaks Acquisitions v. Lone Star 

Steakhouse, 298 Neb. 705, 905 N.W.2d 644 (2018). Thus, 

there must be a substantial connection between the defendant’s contacts and the operative facts of the litigation. Id. 

We agree that our analysis should focus on specific personal 

jurisdiction, and we begin with Nebraska’s long-arm statute, 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-536 (Reissue 2016), which provides in 

relevant part:

A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a 

person:

(1) Who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of 

action arising from the person:
- 938 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

(a) Transacting any business in this state;

. . . .

(2) Who has any other contact with or maintains any 

other relation to this state to afford a basis for the exercise 

of personal jurisdiction consistent with the Constitution 

of the United States.

Nebraska’s long-arm statute, § 25-536, extends Nebraska’s 

jurisdiction over nonresidents having any contact with or 

maintaining any relation to this state as far as the U.S. 

Constitution permits. Nimmer v. Giga Entertainment Media, 

298 Neb. 630, 905 N.W.2d 523 (2018). Section 25-536 “suggests a broad application of the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the courts of this state, an application which is supported by case law.” Quality Pork Internat. v. Rupari Food 

Servs., 267 Neb. 474, 480, 675 N.W.2d 642, 648 (2004). “It 

was the intention of the Legislature to provide for the broadest allowable jurisdiction over nonresidents.” Id. “Thus, if 

a Nebraska court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction would 

comport with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, 

it is authorized by the long-arm statute.” Hand Cut Steaks 

Acquisitions v. Lone Star Steakhouse, 298 Neb. at 723, 905 

N.W.2d at 661.

Nebraska’s long-arm statute provides for personal jurisdiction over business transactions in this State; therefore, we 

consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction in the 

present matter would comport with the Due Process Clause 

of the 14th Amendment. To satisfy due process, we would 

have to conclude that Martin Brothers had sufficient minimum 

contacts with Nebraska and that the exercise of jurisdiction 

over Martin Brothers in Nebraska does not offend traditional 

notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Hand Cut 

Steaks Acquisitions v. Lone Star Steakhouse, supra.

[15-17] The benchmark for determining if the exercise 

of personal jurisdiction satisfies due process is whether the 

defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum state are such 

that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled 
- 939 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

into court there. Kugler Co. v. Growth Products Ltd., 265 Neb. 

505, 658 N.W.2d 40 (2003). Whether a defendant’s contacts 

with the forum state are sufficient to support the exercise of 

personal jurisdiction will vary with the quality and nature of 

the defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that 

there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails 

itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum 

state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. 

Hand Cut Steaks Acquisitions v. Lone Star Steakhouse, supra. 

Personal jurisdiction is proper where the defendant’s contacts 

proximately result from actions by the defendant himself or 

herself that create a substantial connection with the forum 

state. Id.

[18] IRT contends that Martin Brothers’ contacts with 

Nebraska were greater than those of the Florida defendant 

in Quality Pork Internat. v. Rupari Food Servs., supra, a 

case in which the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded there 

were sufficient minimum contacts with Nebraska to satisfy 

the due process requirements for the exercise of specific 

personal jurisdiction. In that case, a Nebraska company only 

agreed to do business with a Texas distributor if the Florida 

defendant agreed to pay for all the products ordered. When 

the Florida defendant failed to pay after a third order, the 

Nebraska company filed a lawsuit in Nebraska. The Florida 

defendant claimed there was no personal jurisdiction because 

it never made any sales directly to Nebraska, it did not apply 

to do business in Nebraska, it did not have offices located in 

Nebraska, it did not own property in Nebraska, and at no time 

did any officer or employee visit Nebraska while employed 

by the Florida company. The Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that the Florida defendant induced a Nebraska company 

to ship products to Texas and that it would not be unduly 

burdensome for the Florida defendant to defend an action in 

Nebraska. The court stated that the Nebraska company had 

a valid interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief 

which supported bringing the action in Nebraska. Further, 
- 940 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

by purposefully conducting business with the Nebraska company, the Florida defendant “could reasonably anticipate that 

it might be sued in Nebraska if it failed to pay for products 

ordered from [the Nebraska company].” Quality Pork Internat. 

v. Rupari Food Servs., 267 Neb. 474, 485, 675 N.W.2d 642, 

652 (2004). Notably, the Nebraska Supreme Court stated that 

“[t]o determine whether a defendant’s contract supplies the 

contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction in a forum state, 

a court is to consider the parties’ prior negotiations and future 

contemplated consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing.” Id. at 484, 675 

N.W.2d at 651.

IRT argues that “[t]he sum total of contacts in Quality 

Pork [Internat.] consisted of an oral agreement to pay for 

some food shipments to be sent to Texas, receiving invoices 

in Florida, mailing two checks from Florida to Nebraska, and 

two phone conversations after default.” Brief for appellant at 

14. IRT points out that in the instant case, Martin Brothers 

initiated the contact with IRT and “engaged in numerous 

communications related to pricing, delivery, operation and 

possible collateral uses of the product after purchase and, 

ultimately, agreed to the purchase, confirmed by a signed 

purchase agreement faxed to Nebraska.” Brief for appellant 

at 12. “It is difficult to comprehend how [Martin Brothers] 

can claim it could not have expected to be haled into court 

in Nebraska, after unequivocally contracting to purchase a 

six-figure piece of equipment and repeatedly contacting IRT 

regarding [the] purchase.” Id.

[19] On the other hand, Martin Brothers argues that “[m]erely 

contracting with a resident of a particular forum is insufficient 

to provide the requisite contact to confer personal jurisdiction.” Brief for appellee at 9. This assertion is supported in 

Kugler Co. v. Growth Products Ltd., 265 Neb. 505, 512, 658 

N.W.2d 40, 47-48 (2003), which states, “[T]he existence of a 

contract with a party in a forum state or the mere use of interstate facilities, such as telephones and mail, does not, in and 
- 941 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

of itself, provide the necessary contacts for personal jurisdiction.” See, also, Nimmer v. Giga Entertainment Media, 298 

Neb. 630, 905 N.W.2d 523 (2018) (while contract alone does 

not establish minimum contacts, establishment of continuing 

relationship with obligations to instate party could); RFD-TV 

v. WildOpenWest Finance, 288 Neb. 318, 849 N.W.2d 107 

(2014) (mail and telephone communication sent by defendant into forum state may count toward minimum contacts, but 

existence of contract or mere use of interstate facilities does 

not, in and of itself, provide necessary contacts for personal 

jurisdiction); Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, 254 

Neb. 323, 576 N.W.2d 760 (1998) (jurisdiction not sought 

on basis of single contract or few contacts; rather, companies 

engaged in ongoing contractual and business relationship over 

period of years).

[20,21] Kugler Co. goes on to state, “But this does not 

mean that the existence of a contract and the use of interstate 

communications may not be considered in the overall analysis. 

265 Neb. at 512, 658 N.W.2d at 48. “We will also consider the 

prior negotiations between the parties and contemplated consequences.” Id. And, “[I]f a substantial connection is created, 

even a single contact can support jurisdiction.” Id. at 512-13, 

658 N.W.2d at 48. While the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded there were sufficient minimum contacts for the exercise of personal jurisdiction in Kugler Co., of significance is 

that there was an ongoing relationship between the Nebraska 

company and the New York defendant involved in that case, 

and a substantial amount of product was sold to the Nebraska 

company. (Between 1992 and 1999, 399 tons of nitrogen products were sold at an approximate cost of $179,472.) The products were then sold within Nebraska. The Nebraska Supreme 

Court stated that “[p]arties who ‘“‘reach out beyond one state 

and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state’ are subject to regulation and sanctions in 

the other State for the consequences of their activities.”’” Id. 

at 513, 658 N.W.2d at 48.
- 942 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

[22] Applied here, both Quality Pork Internat. and Kugler 

Co. would support personal jurisdiction when a single contract is involved; however, the existence of a contract or the 

mere use of interstate communications does not, in and of 

itself, provide the necessary contacts for personal jurisdiction. Rather, whether a defendant’s contract supplies the 

contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction in a forum state, 

a substantial connection must be created, which calls for 

consideration of the parties’ prior negotiations and future contemplated consequences, along with the terms of the contract 

and the parties’ actual course of dealing. See Quality Pork 

Internat. v. Rupari Food Servs., 267 Neb. 474, 675 N.W.2d 

642 (2004), and Hand Cut Steaks Acquisitions v. Lone Star 

Steakhouse, 298 Neb. 705, 905 N.W.2d 644 (2018). Quality 

Pork Internat. v. Rupari Food Servs., supra, involved ongoing 

product shipments to a Texas distributor and ongoing payments by the Florida defendant, and Kugler Co. v. Growth 

Products Ltd., 265 Neb. 505, 658 N.W.2d 40 (2003), involved 

ongoing product sales over many years. The quality and 

nature of these ongoing business transactions was found to 

satisfy the requirement of a substantial connection between 

the nonresident defendant and the forum state, thus establishing the necessary minimum contacts. However, we also note 

that an ongoing relationship, by itself, is not sufficient to 

establish personal jurisdiction. See RFD-TV v. WildOpenWest 

Finance, 288 Neb. 318, 849 N.W.2d 107 (2014) (television 

programming service claimed breach of affiliation agreement; 

although monthly payments were made over course of at least 

2 years, actual business dealings were extremely limited, and 

court found insufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction). Clearly, the quality and nature of the ongoing business relationship is important, not just the fact that a business 

relationship exists.

We conclude a substantial connection was not established 

between Martin Brothers and Nebraska as a result of the 

execution of a single purchase order contract, along with the 
- 943 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

emails and telephone calls which took place between July 

29 and August 16, 2016. Unlike Quality Pork Internat. and 

Kugler Co., the facts alleged here do not establish that Martin 

Brothers and IRT negotiated or contracted for any kind of 

ongoing, substantive business relationship; rather, the contract 

was for the purchase of a single piece of equipment, albeit 

of significant value. Although Martin Brothers did mention 

it had an equipment leasing company that might be able to 

rent out the Impactor to other parties in the future, there is no 

allegation that any other discussions were had or agreements 

reached in that regard. Therefore, even when considering the 

facts in the light most favorable to IRT, we conclude IRT failed 

to make a prima facie showing that Martin Brothers had sufficient minimum contacts with Nebraska to subject them to the 

jurisdiction of our courts.

[23] Having determined that Martin Brothers did not have 

the necessary minimum contacts to support the exercise of 

personal jurisdiction in Nebraska, we need not weigh the 

facts of the case to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice, which involves other considerations (such 

as the burden on the defendant, or as argued by IRT, the 

forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute) for establishing jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts. See Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, 254 Neb. 

323, 576 N.W.2d 760 (1998) (determination of whether district court has jurisdiction is two-step process; first, court 

must establish necessary minimum contacts with Nebraska, 

and then, if such minimum contacts have been established, 

contacts may be considered in light of other factors to 

determine whether assertion of personal jurisdiction would 

comport with fair play and substantial justice). Since these 

other factors or considerations only come into play once 

minimum contacts are established, we need not consider 

them in the present appeal given our conclusion that the 

facts do not set forth the necessary minimum contacts for 
- 944 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

ROTH GRADING v. MARTIN BROS. CONSTR.

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 928

a Nebraska court to exercise personal jurisdiction over 

Martin Brothers.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district 

court’s order dismissing IRT’s complaint for lack of personal 

jurisdiction.

Affirme