Legal Opinion
Secrest MacHine Corp. v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
Decided March 28, 1983No. L.A. 31599PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
REYNOSO, J.
We must decide whether California may constitutionally assert jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation on the basis of activities sur rounding the sale of its product for use in California. The assertion is for the limited purpose of adjudicating a claim that a defect in the design or manufacture of the product caused an injury to a California resident.
Real party in interest Ruben Ramos is the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for the loss of five of his fingers which occurred while he operated a leveling machine 1 at his place of employment in Signal Hill,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Furda v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Integral Development Corp. v. WeissenbachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Indus. Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Rollins Burdick Hunter of Southern California, Inc. v. Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1988
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.