Court Opinion

ID: 9703270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:48:22.718927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:46.986878
License: Public Domain

*375Henderson, J.,
filed the following dissenting opinion.
To my mind the activities within this State relied on to distinguish Manitowoc and Thew are not decisive. Those referred to as research had to do with field studies directed towards future improvements in the product to be manufactured in another state. Since only about two per cent of the product is distributed in Maryland, the effect seems minimal. It is true that the agreement in the instant case was drawn more tightly, but the control exercised was not directed towards sales, but to insure a more detailed accounting to the manufacturer. I think the instant case falls squarely in the pattern of the cases cited. Thomas v. Hudson Sales is distinguishable on the ground that the distributor was a wholly-owned subsidiary, and the controls retained related directly towards current sales.
I see no reason why this Court should depart from its established views as to what constitutes doing business, simply because the Supreme Court of the United States has limited the constitutional immunity from suit once afforded to those engaged in commerce between the states.