Legal Opinion · Dissent
Parish v. Mertes
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided June 20, 1978No. Docket 77-1588Published
1DissentM. J. Kelly, P. J.
I write only to further examine the telephone transaction aspect addressed by the majority. It is my belief that if all defendants had done was to communicate by means of the telephone, either by receipt of interstate calls or by *344initiating such calls in negotiating this loan, they would not ipso facto have become subject to in personam jurisdiction in this state.
The telephone conversations aspect of expanding jurisdiction in McGee v International Life Ins Co, 355 US 220; 78 S Ct 199; 2 L Ed 2d 223 (1957), was examined by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Agrashell, Inc v Bernard Sirotta…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Erl Anger Mills, Inc. v. Cohoes Fibre Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1956
- Agrashell, Inc. v. Bernard Sirotta Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
- Edward B. Benjamin v. Western Boat Building Corporation, Defendant-Third-Party v. Roger McAleer Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.