# Opposition Brief — Holland-America Line v. Foreign Study League > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_1493%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 409 U.S. 1060 ## Text I censnenssneneneneninieneninniates CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES INVOLVED STATEMENT OF THE CASE ensininneiininniies REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT POINT I THE UTAH SUPREME COURT HAS INTERPRE- TED THE “TRANSACTING OF ANY BUSINESS” CONCEPT OF THE UTAH LONG-ARM STATUTE AND THE “DOING BUSINESS” CONCEPT OF INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 US. 310 (1945) TO BE SYNONYMOUS AND THIS INTERPRETATION OF STATE LAW IS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THIS COURT : POINT ll THE UTAH SUPREME COURT HAS CORRECTLY FOUND THAT HOLLAND-AMERICA LINE'S CONTACTS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE MINIMAL STANDARDS REQUIRED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE US. CONSTI- TUTION, AMEND. XIV § 1, AND THAT HOL- LAND-AMERICA LINE “DID BUSINESS IN UTAH UNDER THE LETTER AND SPIRIT” OF INTER- NATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 US. 310 (1945). sasnseneenncenesillll pnenesumanensnmmseanses POINT Ill THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DOES NOT PRESENT AN IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUES. TION AND THE DECISION BELOW TURNS ON NARROW FACTUAL CONSIDERATIONS, LIMIT- ED TO THE PRESENT CASE el ee Page TCI (nnn nnn nnnnnceccveccsnncecenenoenncecneseneccnsnesecsconecocenss 12 es ow De B&R 3 FIG BO, cccasnenrecrsensnssanmincsserennacmmacermnmanemenacnnnniauinnnes A-l BES BD cccccetrsceenrenererncenensnntntanincmmmmnniniinns Bl EG © ceccccsesnctnntsmnentnianiiennidtiininniniinnninn C1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Hanson v. Denckla, 357 US. 235 (1958) ........ 2, 7, 8, 10, 11 Hill v. Zale, 25 Utah 2d 357 (1971) ......--.----------0-ee0-eseeees 3,11 International Shoe v. Washington, 326 US. 310 (1945) .................. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., oe wp TE) yp enn 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Missouri, ex rel. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 273 U.S. 126 (1927) ........-.--..--0---00--0e 5 Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. 590 (1874) .......... BS % : C2 .- 78-27-24. Jurisdiction over nonresidents — Acts submitting person to jurisdiction. — Any person, notwithstanding section 16-10-102, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person cr through an agent does any of the following enumer. ated acts, submits himself, and if an individual, his personal repre. sentative. to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any claim arising from: (1) The transaction of any business within this state; (2) Contracting to supply services or goods in this state; - (3) The causing of any injury within this state whether tortions or by breach of warranty; (4) The ownership, use, or possession of any real estate situated in this state; (5) Contracting to insure any person, property or risk lo- cated within this state at the time of contracting. (6) With respect to actions of divorce and separate main- tenance, the maintenance in this state of a matrimonial domicile at the time the claim arose or the commission in this state of the act giving rise to the claim. 78-27-25. Jurisdiction over nonresidents — Service of pro- cess. — Service of process on any patty outside the state may be made pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Service of summons and of a copy of the complaint, if any, may «lso be made upon any person located without this state by any individual over 21 years of age, not a party to the action, with the same force and effect as though the summons had been personally served within the state. No order of court is required. An affidavit of the server shall be filed with the court stating the COPY BOUND CL C3 rimé, manner and place of service. The court may consider the affidavit, or any other competent proofs, in determining whether proper service has been made. Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to limit or affect the right to serve process in any other manner provided by law. 78-27-26. Jurisdiction over nonresidents — Only claims arising from enumerated acts may be asserted. — Only claims arising from acts enumerated herein may be asserted against a de- fendant in an action in which jurisdiction over him is based upon this act. 78-27-27. Jurisdiction over nonresidents — Default judg-- ments. — No default shall be entered until the expiration of at least thirty days after service. A default judgment rendered on service may be set aside only on a showing which would be timely and sufficient to set aside a default judgment rendered on personal service within this state. 78-27-28. Jurisdiction over nonresidents — When may be exercised. — Subject to the applicable statute of limitations, juris- diction established under this act shall be exercised regardless of when the claim arose. ) CLOSE IN CENTER --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_1493%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.