Court Opinion

ID: 9562630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:32:13.663504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:26.833890
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
I concur in the dissent of Justice Hall; and supplementary thereto make the following comments on the issue involved, and particularly to the ruling projected by Justice Stewart to the effect that “the causing of injury in the state from a product intentionally placed in commerce for distribution to other states is sufficient ‘contact’ to satisfy due process.”
It is my judgment that the finding of jurisdiction wherever there is an injury caused by a product would be an extension of the law contrary to my understanding thereof, as represented by the cases cited in the opinions herein. It would, for all practical purposes, forsake the long respected requirement of minimum contacts, which I submit, all of the soundly decided cases have required, and move toward a formless void of unchartered waters where any distinction as to intra-state jurisdiction would disappear.
When we consider the thousands of manufacturers, and their products, which are involved in commerce throughout our country, it impresses me as being so obvious as not to require exposition thereon that such a rule would infringe upon constitutional interdictions relating to due process of law and the imposition of burdens on interstate commerce. In sum, it is my opinion, that the projected rule \yould result in interminable mischief, including the invitation to other controls, federal and state.
I would adhere to long established law.