Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Cleveland Lumber Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Jacobs, J.,
In this suit on a contract we are asked to determine whether the Pennsylvania courts may obtain in per-sonam jurisdiction over a Georgia corporation which entered into a contract of purchase with a Pennsylvania corporation. The court below held that the Georgia corporation had sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania to justify the exercise of in personam jurisdiction by the Pennsylvania courts. We agree.
On March 19, 1969, after extensive negotiations in Georgia and by mail and over the telephone, appellant, a Georgia corporation, signed a contract while in Georgia…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Southern MacHine Company, Inc. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
- In-Flight Devices Corporation v. Van Dusen Air, Incorporated, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1972
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by131 opinions
- Time Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic Resorts, Ltd. And Coastal Marketing Associates, Inc. And Schuman, Martin L., JrCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- Empire Abrasive Equipment Corporation v. H. H. Watson, Inc. And Old Stone BankCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
- Grand Entertainment Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Kubik v. LetteriSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Koenig v. International Brotherhood of BoilermakersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
126 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.