Revell v. Lidov
Facts: (D) wrote a letter about a government conspiracy that included the (P) as part of the plan. The Article was posted on a Columbia website for journalism. The (P) is a citizen of TX for which he brought suite in that forum. Lidov is a resident of Mass. and Columbia has their main offices in New York. II – B (P) contends that TX can have general jurisdiction over Columbia because their website allows minimum contacts in the form of advertising, contracts, purchase orders for subscriptions, etc. the court thinks that doing business with TX and doing business in TX are two different things. Minimum contacts have not be produced. II—C The court decided that it could not be specific jurisdiction either. The single claim was not enough to have contact. The solicitation or applications do not relate to this action so they do not need t be considered. The website is also an interactive site. 2 The court says that the effect test in a minimum contact rule is only one of the measures. The (P) tried to use the Calder case, however the court distinguishes this case because in this article there is no connection (that the writer knew of) to TX. There would need to be some type of connection to the forum state such as sources from TX or trh article directed at TX. The writer would have to known that he could be sued there yet in this case he did not even know the (P) resided there. Issue: Can sufficient minimum contacts be supported if anyone had access to the site? Rules: - Sufficient minimum contacts with forum state will give rise to either specific or general jurisdiction over foreign defendant under due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; "general jurisdiction" exists when defendant's contacts with forum state are unrelated to cause of action but are continuous and systematic, whereas "specific jurisdiction" arises when defendant's contacts with forum arise from, or are directly related to, the cause of action. - Non-resident university's maintenance of website, which allowed users to subscribe to university's journalism review, purchase advertising on website or in journal and submit electronic applications for admission, did not constitute substantial contacts with Texas, so as to support exercise of general personal jurisdiction over university in Texas under due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; university, since it began keeping records, never received more than twenty internet subscriptions to journal from Texas residents.
- Maintenance of "passive" internet website, i.e., one that merely allows owner to post information on internet, does not constitute sufficient minimum contacts with forum state to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign defendant under due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Flint v. Gust
Georgia resident sued Wisconsin corporation and its president for fraud, conversion, and breach of contract in sale through magazine advertisement of customized truck and trailer. The Habersham Superior Court, Gunter, J., granted motion to dismiss, and Georgia resident appealed. The Court of Appeals, Banke, C.J., held that: (1) Trial court was correct in concluding it had no jurisdiction over breach of contract claim, but - Georgia court had no jurisdiction over Wisconsin company with respect to claim that company breached contract with Georgia resident for customized truck and trailer ordered through ad in trade magazine where Wisconsin corporation denied, by uncontradicted affidavit, regular conduct or solicitation of business in Georgia or any other persistent course of conduct within state or derivation of substantial revenue from goods or services rendered in state.
(2) Court could assert jurisdiction on allegation of intentional and fraudulent inducement to send deposit on vehicle not intended to be delivered. - Georgia court could exercise jurisdiction over Wisconsin corporation, for purpose of suit by Georgia resident alleging frauded conversion in sale of customized truck and van through advertisement in trade magazine, on allegation that Wisconsin corporation intentionally and fraudulently induced Georgia resident to send deposit on vehicle not intended to be delivered.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Gust v. Flint Facts: (P) lived in Georgia. He received a advertisement in the mail that was published in Nebraska by the (D). The advertisement was for a truck company in Madison, WI. The (P) called the ()D and struck a deal, agreeing to the sell of a truck. The (P) sent a deposit, but on arrival the (D) said that he could not sell the truck and tried to persuade
the (P) to buy another truck. He refused and the (D) refused to return his deposit. (P) filed suit in Georgia. Issue: Does a phone call provide a minimum contact or classify as doing business in Georgia? Rules: Georgia courts could not exercise long-arm jurisdiction over Wisconsin sellers of truck and trailer who placed advertisement in trade paper which was published in Nebraska and mailed to Georgia, where it was read by buyer who placed telephone call to sellers in Wisconsin. Reasoning: The (D) did not do regular business in GA; did not engage in persistant conduct with GA; did not receive substantial revenue from GA; only communications had been by phone; no employees in the state; not authorized to do business in the state. Under these assumptions, the requirements under OCGA could not be fulfilled to have long arm jurisdictions.