Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. LG Electronics, Inc.
Washington Supreme Court
Decided July 21, 2016No. 91391-9Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGordon McCloud, J.
¶27 (concurring in part and dissenting in part) — The State filed this antitrust action against several foreign manufacturers of CRTs8 and their out-of-*186state distributors, alleging a conspiracy to fix the global market price of CRTs. Defendants9 moved to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction under Civil Rule (CR) 12(b)(2) and supported their motions with unrebutted declarations about their lack of contacts in our state.
¶28 This case involves an intentional conspiracy to fix prices in violation of RCW 19.86.030—not a defective product.10 The majority nevertheless applies a “stream of…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Walden v. FioreSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.