Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Green v. Wilson
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 22, 1997No. Docket Nos. 104028, 104034 and 104039, Calendar No. 9Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMallett, C.J.
For the following reasons, I dissent.
i
LIMITED personal jurisdiction
As the lead opinion notes, in determining whether the exercise of limited personal jurisdiction over the defendant is proper in this case, a two-step analysis must be undertaken. First, it must be determined if the exercise of limited personal jurisdiction over Wilson would be consistent with the requirements of the Due Process Clause, US Const, Am XIV. Second, it must be determined if Wilson is within the reach of Michigan’s long-arm statute, MCL 600.705; MSA 27A.705. Jeffrey v Rapid American Corp, 448 Mich 178, 185; 529 NW2d…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- 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
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.