Legal Opinion · Dissent

Severn v. Adidas Sportschuhfabriken

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 1, 1973No. Civ. 31658Published

1DissentSims, J.

I respectfully dissent from the decision reversing the order quashing the service of summons. In my opinion each party’s reference to the provisions of section 413.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has led the court to apply what it deems, and what I might question to be (see fns. 2 and 3, infra), California law to a question of immunity which by comity, if not by full faith and credit, should be governed by Florida law.

Section 413.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure states in pertinent part: “Except as'otherwise provided by statute, a summons shall be served on a person: . . . [f] (b) Outside…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  4. Milliken v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. Stewart v. RamsaySupreme Court of the United States · 1916

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API