Legal Opinion · Dissent

Diamond Group, Inc. v. Selective Distribution International, Inc.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided November 25, 2013No. 12-P-864Published

1DissentGrainger, J.

This defendant presents all the characteristics of an archetypal passive purchaser, and none to the contrary. In my view the judge was correct in his determination that we cannot properly assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant in Massachusetts.

Factual background. A buyer in New York (Selective) entered into an agreement with a seller incorporated in Nevada (Diamond) whose principal (Jeffrey Parker) worked and resided in Massachusetts to have perfume, located in a warehouse in New Jersey, delivered within New Jersey and to New York. Of the States connected, however tangentially, to…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Arthur F. Sawtelle, Etc. v. George E. FarrellCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
  5. Jay A. Pritzker v. Bob YariCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API