Legal Opinion
Ranz v. Sposato
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 9, 1980PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Bloom, J.
This appeal confronts us with another facet of the unfinished business precipitated by Rush v Savchuk (444 US 320). Rush held that a Minnesota garnishment statute which embodied the rule laid down in Seider v Roth (17 NY2d 111), was unconstitutional because it permitted the exercise of State jurisdiction without the necessity of establishing that the defendant had such minimal contacts with *409the forum State so as to insure that traditional notions of substantial justice and fair play were not infringed by the assumption of State jurisdiction (International Shoe Co.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Rush v. SavchukSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Seider v. RothNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
- Robinson v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Gregonis v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kalman v. NeumanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Driscoll v. New York State Attorney General's Office Litigation UnitAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Knapp v. ShoemakerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Ranz v. SposatoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980