Court Opinion

ID: 9695413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:19:04.717791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:12.141139
License: Public Domain

Larson, J.
— I respectfully dissent. In Division III of the majority opinion it is stated: “It is clear that under section 617.3 the commission of one tort in whole or in part in Iowa is sufficient to give jurisdiction”, and the majority admit this fact does not determine whether the statute in all cases requires sufficient minimum contact to afford due process, citing International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95, 161 A. L. R. 1057, as the leading case holding such jurisdiction can be so secured.
As I read the Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation case, 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761, which the majority says is identical with the one here, one isolated instance was not considered sufficient. Impliedly, at least, there was a volume of Titan business being transacted in Illinois. Here the inference, if it is an inference, is that a trading stamp concern offered the article as a premium, and the defendant did not solicit or transact direct business in Iowa. In other words, the contact came by way of a second or third transfer, and the holding is that no matter how an article comes into a foreign state the foreign state can secure jurisdiction of the manufacturer, by service on the secretary of state, so as to satisfy due process. I am unable to go that far, and would hold plaintiff must allege and prove a substantial use and consumption in this state before such sendee would be valid. The necessary and basic premise for such jurisdiction, that defendant by act or conduct invokes the benefits and protection of the laws of the forum as clearly set forth in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 253, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 2 L. Ed.2d 1283, 1298, does not appear here. Therefore, I believe the trial court was right and would affirm.