Legal Opinion
Bridgestone Corp. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 25, 2002No. B151190PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*771Opinion
KITCHING, J.
A foreign tire manufacturer regularly sold a large volume of tires to a California distributor, one of which allegedly failed and caused injury. The injured party sued the driver and others who then cross-complained against the manufacturer for indemnity and contribution. The manufacturer moved to quash service of summons on the ground that it does not have sufficient contacts with California to be subject to personal jurisdiction here. The trial court denied the motion. We conclude pursuant to Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462 [105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d…
2Cases cited15 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
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & IICalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Brown v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- In Re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and IICalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- As You Sow v. Conbraco IndustriesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.