holding that it was error for district court to dismiss action for failure to state a claim prior to addressing challenges to personal jurisdiction and venue, because dismissal on the former ground would be with prejudice, while dismissal for either of the two latter grounds would be without prejudice
How later courts described this case
- holding that it was error for district court to dismiss action for failure to state a claim prior to addressing challenges to personal jurisdiction and venue, because dismissal on the former ground would be with prejudice, while dismissal for either of the two latter grounds would be without prejudice
- concluding that Vermont’s long arm statute, which limited suits against foreign corporations to suits brought by its own residents, did not violate equal protection clause of fourteenth amendment or privileges and immunities clause of article four, § 2, of the United States constitution
- explaining that logic compels consideration of venue first because “[a] dismissal for . . . improper venue does not preclude a subsequent action in an appropriate forum, whereas a dismissal for failure to state a claim . . . is with prejudice”
- holding that allowing service according to “manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the service is made” does not “displace state statutes as to the taking of jurisdiction” in ordinary diversity actions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WATERMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached by the majority of my colleagues. I join in the vacation of the order of the court below so that it will be clear that the learned district judge consider the questions of jurisdiction and of venue. I share with Judge Smith the belief that Vermont has constitutional power to give its courts jurisdiction over this claim, and I am of the opinion that such jurisdiction would have been asserted here if the case had been brought in a Vermont state court,