Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGilbert, Justice
The questions before this court are (1) whether the district court has personal jurisdiction over JAG in Ryan’s hen action and (2) whether the district court has personal jurisdiction over JAG in GMH’s cross-claim. With respect to the first issue, I concur with the majority’s decision declining to adopt a joint-venture service rule and that actual notice of the mechanics’ hen action without service is insufficient to subject a party to personal jurisdiction. However, there are additional theories of personal jurisdiction that were not considered by the courts below. The relevance and strength…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Vacura v. Haar's Equipment, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Cyrus v. CyrusSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Derrick v. Drolson Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Smith v. HurdSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Emery v. HertigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.