holding that the exercise of general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation was “reasonable and just” when the corporation’s president maintained an office in the forum where he conducted activities on behalf of the company, such as keeping company files, holding directors’ meetings, carrying on business correspondence, and distributing salary checks drawn on forum bank accounts
How later courts described this case
- holding that the exercise of general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation was “reasonable and just” when the corporation’s president maintained an office in the forum where he conducted activities on behalf of the company, such as keeping company files, holding directors’ meetings, carrying on business correspondence, and distributing salary checks drawn on forum bank accounts
- holding 9 that a Philippine corporation was subject to the general jurisdiction of Ohio because its president— 10 also the general manager and principal stockholder—ran the corporate office from his home in 11 || Ohio, handling correspondence, business files, directors’ meetings, and major financial matters in 12 || the state and through its banks
- finding that the presence of an agent in the state, coupled with other corporate activities such as directors' meetings, business correspondence, stock transfers, payments of salaries, and purchases or property constituted sufficient contracts with the forum to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
- finding general jurisdiction over a Philippine corporation that temporarily relocated to Ohio when the corporation’s president resided in Ohio, corporation’s records were kept in Ohio, board of directors’ meetings were held in Ohio, accounts were held in Ohio banks, and all key business decisions were made in Ohio
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Tawana Carmouche v. Tamborlee Management, Inc., 789 F.3d 1201 (2015)
342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952), but that decision is distinguishable.
Distinguished by Rocky Mountain Chipseal, LLC v. Sherman County, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (2012)
Perkins, supra, the only legal authority RMC cites for this argument, is inapposite.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Minton,
with whom The Chief Justice joins, dissenting.
As I understand the practice in Ohio, the law as agreed to by the court is stated in the syllabus. If an opinion is filed, it expresses the views of the writer of the opinion and of those who may join him as to why the law was so declared in the syllabus. Judge Taft alone filed an opinion in the instant case.
The law as declared in the syllabus, which is the whole court speaking, is clearly based upon adequate state grounds. Judge Taft in his opinion expresses the view that the opinions of this Court on due process grounds require the court to declare the law as stated in the syllabus. As the majority opinion of this Court points out, this is an erroneous view of this Court’s decisions. “This brings the situation clearly within the settled rule whereby this Court will not review a State court decision resting on an adequate and independent non-federal ground even though the State court may have also summoned to its support an erroneous view of federal law.” Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 129 .
The case of State Tax Comm’n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511 , is not this case. There the case was not clearly de *450 cided on an adequate state ground, but the state ground and the federal ground were so interwoven that this Court was “unable to conclude that the judgment rests upon an independent interpretation of the state law.” (P. 514.) In the instant case, a clear statement of the state law is made by the court in the syllabus. Only Judge Taft has summoned the erroneous view of this Court’s decisions to his support’of the adequate state ground approved by the whole court.
What we are saying to Ohio is: “You have decided this case on an adequate state ground, denying service, which you had a right to do, but you don’t have to do it if you don’t want to, as far as the decisions of this Court are concerned.” I think what we are doing is giving gratuitously an advisory opinion to the Ohio Supreme Court. I would dismiss .the writ as improvidently granted.