Legal Opinion
Fausett v. Host
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided January 18, 1994No. 93-470PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
David Newbern, Justice.
The question in this case is whether a writ of prohibition may issue to prevent a trial court from asserting in personam jurisdiction. We hold that, when a trial court has made a determination that a person’s contacts with Arkansas are sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts requirement of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-4-101 C.l.(a) (Supp. 1993), the proper manner of challenging the decision is by appeal and not by a petition for a writ of prohibition.
Rodney and Sheila Host, the respondents, live in North Little…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Gillioz v. Kincannon, JudgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948
- SD Leasing, Inc. v. Al Spain and Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
- Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. LindseySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
- Order of Railway Conductors of America v. BandySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Finney v. CookSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2002
- Tortorich v. TortorichSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
- Blankenship v. Office of Child Support EnforcementCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1997
- Bonnell v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
- Desoto Gathering Co. v. RamseySupreme Court of Arkansas · 2016
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.