Legal Opinion
Architectural Building Components Corp. v. Comfort
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 5, 1974No. 47354PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DOOLIN, Justice.
What constitutes due process in the area of civil proceedings and process is raised in this case. Specifically, what are the “minimum contacts” and the fundamental concepts of “fair play and substantial justice” necessary under International Shoe Corp. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057, and Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, before the long arm statute enacted by the Oklahoma Legislature 1 shall become operative ? Before commencing to dispose of this matter, we feel compelled to note that due process may not be…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Vanderbilt v. VanderbiltSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Cook Associates, Inc. v. Colonial Broach & MacHine Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1973
- Fourth Northwestern National Bank v. Hilson Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Hough v. LeonardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- McLin v. TrimbleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
- Carmack v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1975
- Roberts v. Jack Richards Aircraft Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1975
- Yankee Metal Products Co. v. District Court of Oklahoma County, Seventh Judicial DistrictSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.