In re the Marriage of David-Oytan
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtSchindler, J.
¶1 — Kudret Oytan contends the Washington State superior court did not have the authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over him in this dissolution because he was not “[l]iving in a marital relationship within this state” under the long-arm statute, RCW 4.28.185(l)(f). He contends that because he was not a resident, the limited contacts necessary for jurisdiction are not established, and jurisdiction lies only in Turkey. He also contends the court did not have jurisdiction because the long-arm statute service requirements were not met.
¶2 But the parties never lived in a marital…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
- State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. LG Electronics, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- State v. AU Optronics Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- L.d.m. Worldwide Corp., Resp. v. Richard Erog, Apps.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- Satcher v. StanislausDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2020
- State Of Washington v. Lg Electronics, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.