Cook Associates v. Lexington United Corp. case brief summary
429 N.E.2d 847 (1981)
CASE FACTS
Appellee argued that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois for purposes of appellant's breach of contract action because it had insufficient contacts with the State of Illinois. The court found that appellee was not subject to the Illinois long-arm statute, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110, para. 17 (1977), because the cause of action did not arise from a business transaction in the state. Appellant argued that a Chicago interview was the first step in the parties' negotiations, but the court was not persuaded.
DISCUSSION
The court further found that appellee was not amenable to jurisdiction in Illinois under the "doing business" doctrine because its activities in the state, which consisted of one interview and three trade-show exhibits, did not occur with a fair measure of permanence and continuity.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that appellee was not amenable to service under the Illinois long-arm statute because the cause of action did not arise out of an Illinois transaction, and that three Chicago trade-show exhibits were not "doing business" for jurisdictional purposes.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
429 N.E.2d 847 (1981)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant, an Illinois corporation, was
awarded summary judgment in a breach of contract action against
appellee, a Delaware corporation. Appellant sought review after the
Appellate Court for the First District (Illinois) reversed and held
that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over
appellee.CASE FACTS
Appellee argued that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois for purposes of appellant's breach of contract action because it had insufficient contacts with the State of Illinois. The court found that appellee was not subject to the Illinois long-arm statute, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110, para. 17 (1977), because the cause of action did not arise from a business transaction in the state. Appellant argued that a Chicago interview was the first step in the parties' negotiations, but the court was not persuaded.
DISCUSSION
The court further found that appellee was not amenable to jurisdiction in Illinois under the "doing business" doctrine because its activities in the state, which consisted of one interview and three trade-show exhibits, did not occur with a fair measure of permanence and continuity.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that appellee was not amenable to service under the Illinois long-arm statute because the cause of action did not arise out of an Illinois transaction, and that three Chicago trade-show exhibits were not "doing business" for jurisdictional purposes.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment