Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Construction Co., Inc
445 U.S. 907
SCOTUS
1980
Check Treatment

*1 Angeles Municipal 79-5906. Gilliam No. Los Party App. Cal., Ct. Interest). Real (California, . App. Dist denied. Certiorari Butler Ct. Ohio,

No. 79-5915. Korn Ohio. County. Certiorari denied. Taylor City A. 79-5929.

No. C. et of Atlanta 5th Certiorari denied. Cir. Rodriguez Secretary 79-5944.

No. Educa- Health, 1st Certiorari denied. Cir. tion, and A. Welfare. Spangenberg Sup. 79-5965. No. Amistadi Ohio. Certiorari denied. D. C. C. A. Johnson United States. Certiorari denied.

Cir. Barry 2d Cir. A. 79-5997. No. States. Certiorari denied. Delay 8th Cir. 79-6001.

No. United States. denied. Certiorari 4th Cir. C. A. Brown United States. denied.

Certiorari C. A. Williams No. 79-376. Mountain No. Steel Certiorari A. 7th Cir. Inc. Construction denied. with whom White, dissenting.

joins, for certiorari. the denial of busi- place corporation with Wisconsin Petitioner, a West contracted with respondent, ness in Milwaukee, Wis., Virginia corporation with its principal place business *2 Charleston, W. to sell Va., structural for incorpo- assemblies by ration respondent into the outlet works aof dam and in Virginia. reservoir Aside from the arising contacts the negotiation, execution, performance and of this contract, respondent has never had any connection with the of Wisconsin. Petitioner’s agent initiated the by negotiations visiting respondent’s offices in West Virginia delivering quotation. The quotation provided “[a]ny that arising order of out proposal subject ... to home acceptance office at Milwaukee, Wisconsin.” Respondent then mailed peti- tioner its purchase order referring petitioner’s quotation. Petitioner signed the purchase order in Milwaukee and re- turned it to respondent together with a proposed modifica- tion, part became of the contract when treated the modified order as effective. During the course their negotiations of both parties initiated other communica- tions between their respective offices by either telephone or by mail.

The provided goods the were to be shipped “F. O. B. SELLERS PLANT [sic] MILWAUKEE, WIS- CONSIN with freight allowed to rail siding project nearest site,” and stated that Wisconsin law govern the trans- According action. to petitioner, Pet. for the Cert. total contract price was $1,281,750.00. Petitioner proceeded goods manufacture the ship Wisconsin and them to project the site Virginia. Respondent asserted that some were defective and withheld of the purchase price.

Petitioner filed thereupon present action in a Wisconsin state court to recover unpaid balance on the It contract. alleged personal jurisdiction under Wisconsin’s long-arm statute, Wis. Stat. §§ 801.05, 801.11 (1975), which has been interpreted to reach as far as process due will allow, Flambeau Plastics King Bee Mfg. Co., 24 Wis. 2d 459, 464, 129 N. W. 2d 240 (1964). Respondent removed the case to the for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. there It filed a motion to dismiss for lack jurisdiction or, in to transfer alternative, case to a federal in Virginia district court or West Virginia. The court denied the motion and summary entered judgment petitioner on the merits.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that (1979), respondent’s contacts with the Wisconsin forum were not satisfy sufficient to the “mini- mum contacts” test International Shoe Co. Washington, 326 U. found that court con- tacts with the forum consisted solely of “unilateral activity of claim who some relationship [one] [s] with a de- nonresident *3 fendant” of the type found personal insufficient sustain jurisdiction in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. 235, 253 Although respondent ordered the goods from a Wisconsin cor- poration with knowledge they likely were to be manu- factured in respondent did Wisconsin, not thereby “purpose- fully itself of privilege avai[l] of conducting activities within the forum State,” ibid., since the contract peti- left tioner with absolute discretion toas where would be manufactured. Nor did Court of Appeals find requi- site minimum (a) contacts in provision requiring shipment f. o. b. petitioner’s Milwaukee, (b) re- spondent’s use of interstate telephone and mail services communicate with petitioner in (c) or Wisconsin, respondent’s sending the purchase order to Wisconsin. The Court Appeals therefore remanded the case to the with directions to vacate the judgment and either dismiss the or case transfer it to another district.

As the Court Appeals 597 noted, F. 2d, 601, question jurisdiction over a nonresident corporate defendant based on contractual dealings awith plain- resident tiff has deeply divided the federal and state courts. Cases arguably conflict with the decision below include: Pedi Bares, P Inc. v. & C Food Markets, Inc., 567 2d (CA10 F. 933

910 Railway

1977); Equipment v. Port Huron & Co., Detroit R. 495 (CA7 F. 2d 1127 Product Promo tions, Cousteau, Inc. v. 495 F. 2d 483, (CA5 494-499 1974); Ajax Realty Corp. Zook, Inc., v. J. F. (CA4 493 1972), cert. denied sub Products, Durell nom. Ajax Inc. Realty Corp., 411 966 U. S. In-Flight (1973); Devices Inc., v. Van Dusen Air, 466 F. 2d 220 (CA6 1972); O’Hare Int’l Bank Hampton, 437 F. 2d (CA7 1971); 1173 Electro-Craft Corp. Maxwell Electronics Corp., (CA8 417 365 1969); F. 2d Plans, Lease Draughon Inc. College, Alverson Manufacturers’ 115 Ariz. 358, 864 (1977) (en banc); Press, Colony Fleeman, Inc. 17 Ill. 3d (1974) E. 2d 78 ; N. Miller Equipment Glendale Supply, Inc., 2d So. (Miss. 1977); McIntosh v. Navaro Seed Co., 81 N. M. 302, 466 P. 2d 868 State ex Sales, rel. White Lumber (1970); Inc. Sulmonetti, 252 Ore. 121, 448 (en P. 2d banc); Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. Cleveland Lumber 228 Pa. Super. 11 (1974); Zerbel H. L. Federman & Co., 48 Wis. 2d 54, 179 N. W. 2d 872 (1970), appeal dism’d, 402 U. S. 902 (1971). Cases arguably supporting the decision below include: Republic Int’l Corp. Engineers, v. Amco 516 F. 2d (CA9 1975) Whittaker (dictum); Corp., 482 F. 2d 1079, (CA1 1973) 1084-1085 Aircraft (construing state law); E. R. Callender Printing Co. Dis *4 Court, trict 182 Colo. (1973) (en banc) P. (construing Rath Packing law); state v. Co. Intercontinental Traders, Meat Inc., 181 N. (Iowa W. 2d 184 O. N. Jonas Co. B P Sales Corp., 232 Ga. 206 S. E. 2d 437 (1974) (construing state law); Egg Marshall Transport Co. Bender-Goodman Minn. 148 N. W. 2d 161 (1967) state Whitmore, Conn (construing law); 9 Utah 2d 250, Sun-X Int’l (construing law); state Witt, 413 W. 2d (Tex. App. 1967). Civ. question issue is one importance considerable to con tractual dealings purchasers between and sellers located in different disarray States. The among federal and courts state noted may above well have a disruptive effect on commercial relations in certainty of result a prime objective. disarray That also strongly prior suggests decisions of this offer guidance no clear on question. would grant in order to address this important problem. 9thA. Janelle Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Marshall grant would cer- tiorari.

No. 79-901. Ohio Ohio, Butler v. Korn. County. Motion of proceed leave to in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied. Light Iowa Electric & Power Co. v. Atlas C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Mr. and Mr.

White grant would certiorari Justice Powell order to address the conflict state among courts federal noted in Mr. denial of certio- Justice White’s rari in & Steel Co. v. Mountain Con- struction ante, Co., No. p. 907. 79-376, Justice Black- Mr. grant would certiorari and set case for mun argument. oral No. 79-1005. Alton Box Board et Co. Three J. A. Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Farms, took no in the consideration or decision Powell petition. No. 79-1057. Gilbert Carbide Union 7th Cir. Motion of Louis Robertson for leave to file brief as amicus granted. curiae

No. Hankinson A. 3d Cir. v. Ruhlman. Certiorari denied. and Justice White grant certiorari.