Court Opinion

ID: 9711529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:33:49.927215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:05.696634
License: Public Domain

VAN der VOORT, Judge,
dissenting:
I concur with the majority in that part of the opinion which deals with the Proctor test for determining jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.
I respectfully dissent, however, from that part of the decision of the majority which remands the case to determine whether appellee has conducted continuous and substantial activities within this state so as to make it reasonable for us to exercise jurisdiction.
In my judgment, not only did the pleadings fail to allege sufficient facts to warrant our exercise of jurisdiction, but the record below already contains enough evidence for a determination that appellee has not conducted the “substan*558tial” activities necessary for this state to exercise jurisdiction over an unrelated cause of action. Bork v. Mills, 458 Pa. 228, 329 A.2d 247 (1974).
Therefore I would affirm the order of the Court below which sustains appellee’s preliminary objections.