Legal Opinion
Taylor v. Klenzade Products Inc.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided December 2, 1952No. 4148PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.
Under the rule laid down in Internat. Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, the first and third questions transferred by the Trial Court raise essentially the same issue. If the defendant’s activities in New Hampshire were such as to make it reasonable and just to require it to defend this action, it may be held to have been “doing business” here in such a way as to subj ect it to the jurisdiction of our courts, without violation of the requirements of due process. Grace v. Company, 95 N. H. 74.
Whether there was proper service on the defendant will be seen to depend largely upon the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Nichols v. Cowles Magazines, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1952
- Schmikler v. Petersime Incubator Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1948
- Keppel v. E. W. Wiggins Airways, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1952
3Cited by11 opinions
- Kneeland v. Ethicon Suture Laboratories, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1953
- State v. Luv Pharmacy, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
- W. H. Elliott & Sons Co. v. Nuodex Products Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1957
- Roy v. Transairco, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
- Engineering Associates of New England, Inc. v. B & L Liquidating Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.