Shamley v. Shamley
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
THOMPSON, Judge.
The main issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s equitable distribution action and his ancillary claim for restitution for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendant.
Exercise of jurisdiction in an equitable distribution action must meet the minimum contacts standard of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 90 L.Ed. 95, 102 (1945). Carroll v. Carroll, 88 N.C. App. 453, 455, 363 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1988). In determining whether a nonresident defendant is subject to the in person-am jurisdiction of the courts of this State, we…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
- Sink v. EasterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Mims v. MimsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bates v. JarrettCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
- State v. CummingsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
- Abernathy v. AbernathySupreme Court of Georgia · 1997
- Abernathy v. AbernathySupreme Court of Georgia · 1997
- Sink v. SprinkleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006