Derman v. Wilair Services, Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, Judge:
This appeal is from a July 30, 1990 order sustaining the preliminary objections of appellee, Wilair Services Inc. (“Wilair”), and dismissing appellants’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants, Deborah Derman and Benjamin Solin, argue that the court erred in sustaining appellee’s preliminary objections because (1) appellee has sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania; and (2) appellee conducted an ongoing and systematic course of business in Pennsylvania. We affirm.
The facts underlying this appeal, summarized by the trial court, are as follows.
On March 23, 1988,…
2Cases cited21 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
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Pappert v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Elbeco Inc. v. Estrella De Plato, Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
- Mendel v. WilliamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Hall-Woolford Tank Co. v. R.F. Kilns, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Sulkava v. Glaston Finland OySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.