Court Opinion

ID: 9616244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:44:41.519528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:56.316044
License: Public Domain

MAUGHAN, Justice
(dissenting):
The reasons for dissent are adequately stated in my dissenting opinion in Union Ski Company v. Union Plastics Corporation, 548 P.2d 1257, (Utah, 1976), to which reference is made.
Appropriate also is the following statement from 27 A.L.R.3d, Jurisdiction Over Nonresident, Section 3, page 418:
However, it can be stated safely that in most jurisdictions the trend is toward expanding jurisdiction over nonresidents. It has been said that this trend toward liberality is creative of a “minimum contact” rule as prerequisite to the exercise of power over nonresident defendants.
Under statutes predicating jurisdiction on the transaction of “any” business or merely on “transacting business,” it has been held that the volume of business done by the nonresident in the forum state is not the only method by which the necessary contacts can be established. Moreover, the courts have recognized a distinction between activities of a foreign corporation which will bring the corporation within the jurisdiction of the local courts, and activities necessary to subject the foreign corporation to domestication.
This latter distinction, I believe, we have not made; and, in not doing so, have saddled residents with burdens not anticipated by our statute.