342 U.S. 437 (1952)
Petitioner, a nonresident of Ohio, filed suit against respondents, including respondent incorporated foreign mining company. The mining company had been carrying on a limited but continuous and systematic part of its general business in the state . Petitioner's cause of action did not arise in Ohio and did not relate to the company's activities there.
Whether the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV precluded Ohio from subjecting a foreign corporation to the jurisdiction of its courts in an action in personam.
- The U.S. Supreme Court held that the company's continuous and systematic in-state activities, including directors' meetings, business correspondence, banking stock transfers, and payment of salaries, were enough to make it fair and reasonable to subject the company to proceedings in personam, at least insofar as the proceedings sought to enforce causes of action related to those very activities or to other activities within the state.
- As such, it did not violate federal due process for Ohio to either take or decline jurisdiction of the company.
The Court vacated and remanded, holding that it did not violate federal due process for the state either to take or to decline jurisdiction in the proceeding since the company's continuous and systematic carrying of business made it fair and reasonable to subject the company to the proceedings.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.