Legal Opinion
GUFFEY v. OSTONAKULOV
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided February 11, 2014No. 112,270PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COMBS, J.:
T1 The only question presented on appeal is whether the district court possesses in personam jurisdiction over a Tennessee individual and corporation, who sold a motor vehicle to an Oklahoma resident. We hold that the district court possesses jurisdiction. The totality of contacts in this cause indicates that the exercise of in personam jurisdiction is proper and does not violate the due process rights of Defendants/Appellees.
Alleged Facts and Procedural History
1 2 Guffey is a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Ostonakulov is a resident of the State of Tennessee and MNI is a…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Issiah Andra v. Left Gate Property Holding, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2015
- Montgomery v. Airbus Helicopters, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2018
- GUFFEY v. OSTONAKULOVSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2014
- MONTGOMERY v. AIRBUS HELICOPTERSSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2018
- BURGGRAF SERVICES, INC. v. H2O SOLUTIONSCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2014
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.