Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corporation

28 Citing cases

  1. Bach v. McDonnell Douglas, Inc.

    468 F. Supp. 521 (D. Ariz. 1979)   Cited 6 times

    A defendant cannot be considered to be "doing business" in Arizona unless engaged in a systematic end continuous course of business. Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, 112 Ariz. 365, 367, 542 P.2d 24, 27 (1975). It is apparent that Martin-Baker does not do business under this standard.

  2. Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int'l, Inc.

    551 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1977)   Cited 379 times
    Holding that "the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing its existence when challenged," and "[can]not simply rest on the bare allegations of its complaint, but rather [is] obligated to come forward with facts, by affidavit or otherwise, supporting personal jurisdiction"

    In contrast, the presence in Arizona of the allegedly infringing items in this case was not established by Amba, and thus the cited cases do not support personal jurisdiction here. See Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 112 Ariz. 365, 542 P.2d 24 (1975). Moreover, we think it was essential for Amba to show that the imitations were sold in Arizona or to Arizona consumers by either Jobar or the California mail order houses to which it sold in order to establish an "event" within the meaning of Rule 4(e)(2).

  3. Jackson v. Shepard

    609 F. Supp. 205 (D. Ariz. 1985)   Cited 6 times
    Dismissing medical-malpractice action for lack of personal jurisdiction where the alleged injury-causing event occurred in California

    Injury in Arizona resulting from an out-of-state event is insufficient to establish jurisdiction under Rule 4(e)(2). See Amba Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Jobar International, Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 788 (9th Cir. 1977); Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 112 Ariz. 365, 542 P.2d 24 (1975). The hospital is not doing business in Arizona.

  4. Rowell Laboratories, Inc. v. Superior Court

    573 P.2d 91 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 3 times

    Did these defendants cause an event to occur in this state out of which the plaintiffs' claim arose? In Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, 112 Ariz. 365, 542 P.2d 24 (1975), our Supreme Court held that where the actual damage causing event did not occur in this state, and the only nexus with this state was the effects of the event, the requisite "minimum contact" with Arizona is not met. Here, the actual damage causing event, i.e. ingestion of the drug, occurred in Ohio during the mother's pregnancy.

  5. Braband v. Beech Aircraft Corp.

    51 Ill. App. 3d 296 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)   Cited 26 times
    In Braband v. Beech Aircraft Corporation, 51 Ill. App.3d 296, 9 Ill.Dec. 684, 367 N.E.2d 118 (1977), aff'd on other grounds, 72 Ill.2d 548, 21 Ill.Dec. 888, 382 N.E.2d 252 (Ill. 1978), an airplane designed and manufactured by Beech Aircraft Corporation, a Kansas corporation, was sold to an Illinois company.

    At the outset it is to be noted that once jurisdiction has been challenged, the burden of proving its presence rests on the party asserting it. Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corp. (1975), 112 Ariz. 365, 542 P.2d 24, 26; Williams v. Connolly (D.C. Minn. 1964), 227 F. Supp. 539. Tortious Act Theory

  6. Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen

    743 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1984)   Cited 433 times
    Holding that defendant's seven visits over three years to the forum state, purchase of over $200,000 worth of products from the forum state, and numerous phone calls and letters to the forum state were more “occasional than continuous, and more infrequent than systematic”

    Arizona's longarm statute establishes personal jurisdiction over nonresidents to the maximum extent permitted by due process. Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 112 Ariz. 365, 542 P.2d 24, 26 (1975). Due process requires the defendants to have certain minimum contacts with the forum so that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

  7. Bethany Auto Sales, Inc. v. Aptco Auto Auction

    564 F.2d 895 (9th Cir. 1977)   Cited 1 times

    Amba's bare allegation of harm or injury suffered in the forum state does not constitute an "event" occurring within the state and thus does not by itself confer personal jurisdiction under Arizona's long-arm rule. See Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 112 Ariz. 365, 542 P.2d 24 (1975). Rather, the actual damage-causing event must have occurred in Arizona, not merely the effect of the event.

  8. Westphal v. Mace

    671 F. Supp. 665 (D. Ariz. 1987)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that transferring the case from Arizona to Nevada would be in the interests of justice when the injury to Plaintiff occurred in Nevada and the only connection Defendant had to Arizona was advertising in Arizona

    Arizona's long arm statute establishes personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the maximum extent permitted by due process. Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1330 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1066, 105 S.Ct. 2143, 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985); Roughton v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 112 Ariz. 365, 367, 542 P.2d 24, 26 (1975). Thus, the only real issue before this court is whether exercising personal jurisdiction over this nonresident defendant comports with due process.

  9. Sage Investors v. Group W Cable, Inc.

    666 F. Supp. 186 (D. Ariz. 1986)   Cited 2 times

    Arizona's long arm statute establishes personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the maximum extent permitted by due process. Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1330 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1066, 105 S.Ct. 2143, 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985); Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 112 Ariz. 365, 367, 542 P.2d 24, 26 (1975). Due process requires that a defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum so that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

  10. Leaks v. Ex-Lax, Inc.

    424 F. Supp. 413 (D.D.C. 1976)   Cited 9 times
    Holding there to be no personal jurisdiction under section 13-423 because the plaintiff was injured in Arizona during a business trip, rather than in the District, when she "took the pills in Arizona, suffered the reaction there, and was treated there," despite continuing to suffer from her injuries after her return to her home in the District of Columbia

    Of course, with defendant Ex-Lax dismissed from the case by virtue of the instant order, plaintiff may wish to voluntarily dismiss this case and sue in Arizona where in personam jurisdiction over both defendants may well be available. See Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 112 Ariz. 365, 542 P.2d 24 (1975). In accordance with the foregoing, it is, by the Court, this 23rd day of December, 1976,