Legal Opinion · Dissent

Abernathy v. Abernathy

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 3, 1997No. S96A1770Published

1DissentSears, Justice

In ruling that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction in this case, the majority demonstrates fundamental misunderstandings of our domestic relations long-arm statute9 and of the minimum contacts test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Shaffer v. Heitner.10 For the reasons that follow, I would hold that OCGA § 9-10-91 (5) and the minimum contacts test preclude the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in this case.

1. The majority reasons that compliance with OCGA § 9-10-91 (5) is unnecessary in this case because it only applies to the exercise of personal…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  4. Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

17 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