Court Opinion

ID: 9860941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:37:28.191626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:54.572669
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: I agree with the majority’s statement of the law governing this issue. I disagree, however, with the majority’s application of the law to the instant facts. The factors articulated in Viktron Limited Partnership v. Program Data Inc., 326 Ill. App. 3d 111, 121 (2001), indicate that minimum contacts with Illinois are not enough to invoke long-arm jurisdiction; those contacts must also constitute a basis from which the cause of action arises. The instant cause of action arose out of information placed on the Internet by Anne (an Oklahoma resident). She provided the information in the spirit of mere communication. Her message was not limited to any particular state, and she did not use the message to transact any business in Illinois. I simply disagree with the majority’s decision to nonetheless extend Illinois jurisdiction based on the “totality” of Anne’s actions. The actions that matter do not warrant Illinois jurisdiction. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.