Legal Opinion

Barrett v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 2017No. CC 15CV27317; SC S063914PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*117KISTLER, J.

The primary question in this case is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits Oregon to exercise general jurisdiction over an interstate railroad for claims unrelated to the railroad’s activities in this state. The trial court ruled that it could exercise general jurisdiction over the railroad and denied the railroad’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs negligence action for lack of personal jurisdiction. After the railroad petitioned for a writ of mandamus, we issued an alternative writ to the trial court, which adhered to its initial ruling. The case…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Daimler AG v. BaumanSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  4. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  5. Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Aspen American Insurance Company v. Interstate Warehouseing, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Figueroa v. BNSF Railway Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Cox v. HP Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2021
  4. Aspen American Insurance Company v. Interstate Warehouseing, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Karl Langlois v. Bnsf Railway, CoCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019

12 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