ORCP 4

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute (ORS 14.035)

      Jurisdiction can be proved by allegations of complaint, allegations of any affidavit or oral testimony of any witness. State ex rel Advanced Dictating Supply, Inc. v. Dale, 269 Or 242, 524 P2d 1404 (1974)

 

      Receipt in Oregon of correspondence alleging existence of cause of action is insufficient to establish Oregon jurisdiction over sender regarding subject matter of correspondence. Cascade Corp. v. HIAB-FOCO AB, 619 F2d 36 (1980)

 

In general

 

      Trial court had personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant where contract between parties called for services to be performed in Oregon and where plaintiff sent things of value from Oregon. WEC, Inc. v. Patrin, 91 Or App 607, 756 P2d 667 (1988)

 

      Where complaint and affidavit contain sufficient facts and allegations to establish personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant, trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss. Lenhardt v. Stafford, 101 Or App 400, 790 P2d 557 (1990)

 

      Allegation of facts sufficient to support jurisdiction under specific subsection provisions does not make personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendant per se constitutional. Biggs v. Robert Thomas, O.D., Inc., 133 Or App 621, 893 P2d 545 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Residents of Warm Springs Reservation are not domiciled within state and are therefore subject to service only if grounds exist for long-arm jurisdiction. North Pacific Insurance Co. v. Switzler, 143 Or App 223, 924 P2d 839 (1996)

 

      Where defendant, Texas-based company, undertook retrofit campaign to repair cranes, including crane in this state on which plaintiff was injured, campaign constituted service activity and defendant’s offer to sell retrofit kits constituted solicitation for purposes of this section in manner sufficient for plaintiff to establish that trial court had personal jurisdiction over defendant. Swank v. Terex Utilities, Inc., 274 Or App 47, 360 P3d 586 (2015), Sup Ct review denied                  

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

 

In general

 

      16 WLR 715 (1980); 71 OLR 319 (1992)

 

ORCP 4A

 

      See also annotations under ORS 14.010 and 14.020 in permanent edition.

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Oregon courts did not have jurisdiction over Washington hospital and physicians for alleged malpractice committed in Washington while plaintiff was Washington resident and there was no connection between Oregon and injury and defendants were not present in state. Bachman v. Medical Engineering Corp., 81 Or App 85, 724 P2d 858 (1986)

 

      Advertising in Oregon newspaper, distributing brochures to travel agents in state, maintaining toll-free telephone information service available to Oregon residents and telephoning to confirm reservation were not by themselves substantial activities giving rise to general jurisdiction. State ex rel Circus Circus Reno, Inc. v. Pope, 317 Or 151, 854 P2d 461 (1993)

 

      Jurisdiction based upon substantial activities within state is general and not limited to actions connected with activities. Rescue Technology, Inc. v. Claw, Inc., 153 Or App 190, 956 P2d 1010 (1998)

 

ORCP 4C to 4N

 

      See also annotations under ORS 14.035 in permanent edition.

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

In general

 

      Where parent’s only contacts with Oregon were calls to children and single visit to brother, parent did not purposely derive benefit from activities relating to Oregon and thus Oregon cannot constitutionally assert personal jurisdiction. VanAcker and VanAcker, 97 Or App 343, 775 P2d 921 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

 

Under former similar statute (ORS 14.035)

 

      56 OLR 200 (1977)

 

ORCP 4C

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Contact necessary for jurisdiction existed where written representation by Colorado business in Oregon sales catalog and oral representation made when plaintiff called defendant from Oregon led plaintiff to travel to Colorado to purchase defective truck. Marvel v. Pennington GMC, Inc., 98 Or App 612, 780 P2d 760 (1989)

 

      Economic loss does not qualify as personal injury or injury to property. Portland Trailer and Equipment v. A-1 Freeman Moving, 166 Or App 651, 5 P3d 604 (2000), modified 168 Or App 654, 4 P3d 741 (2000)

 

ORCP 4D

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      This rule requires that claimed injury occur in Oregon and presupposes that act or omission causing injury occurred outside Oregon. Marvel v. Pennington GMC, Inc., 98 Or App 612, 780 P2d 760 (1989)

 

      Complaint satisfied requirements of this section by alleging that defendant engaged in “service activities” when defendant caused to be mailed from Florida to Oregon: 1) letter confirming transaction; 2) building order and invoice form; and 3) congratulatory letter welcoming plaintiff to its network. Columbia Boat Sales v. Island Packet Yachts, 105 Or App 85, 803 P2d 283 (1990)

 

      Defendant’s unrelated in-state solicitation and service activities did not confer jurisdiction over suit for foreign state tort. Bryant v. Weintraub, Genshlea, Hardy, Erich & Brown, 844 F Supp 640 (D. Or. 1994), aff’d 42 F3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994)

 

      Economic loss does not qualify as personal injury or injury to property. Portland Trailer and Equipment v. A-1 Freeman Moving, 166 Or App 651, 5 P3d 604 (2000), modified 168 Or App 654, 4 P3d 741 (2000)

 

ORCP 4E

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute (ORS 14.035)

 

      Whether promise made outside state confers jurisdiction depends on whether promise causes or promotes significant economic consequences within state. State ex rel Sweere v. Crookham, 289 Or 3, 609 P2d 361 (1980)

 

In general

 

      It was proper for Oregon courts to assert jurisdiction over New York businessperson who caused important economic consequences by continually contacting plaintiff’s credit office in Oregon to convince plaintiff to extend credit to debtor based on businessperson’s personal guaranty. White Stag v. Wind Surfing, Inc., 67 Or App 459, 679 P2d 312 (1984)

 

      Where Louisiana defendant advertised in national publication, negotiated sale of car over phone with plaintiff and plaintiff received car in Oregon, Oregon courts had jurisdiction over defendant. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo v. Carruth, 71 Or App 81, 691 P2d 127 (1984)

 

      Only if guaranty plays integral part in significant economic consequences may contacts between forum state and foreign corporation be attributed to guarantors so as to provide constitutional basis for personal jurisdiction. Nike, Inc. v. Spencer, 75 Or App 362, 707 P2d 589 (1985), Sup Ct review denied; Boehm & Co. v. Environmental Concepts, Inc., 125 Or App 249, 865 P2d 413 (1993)

 

      Mere movement of freight through state did not give jurisdiction over action to collect freight charges. Sunrise Express, Inc. v. Rhett Votaw & Co., Inc., 118 Or App 722, 848 P2d 1255 (1993)

 

      Where suit related to condition of automobiles received outside state, neither sending of automobile titles to Oregon by seller nor mailing of payment from Oregon by purchaser gave state personal jurisdiction over seller. Amundson v. Jackson, 122 Or App 85, 857 P2d 155 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Promise to act as guarantor of note was promise to deliver thing of value. Boehm & Co. v. Environmental Concepts, Inc., 125 Or App 249, 865 P2d 413 (1993)

 

ORCP 4F

 

      See annotations under ORS 14.010 and 14.020 in permanent edition.

 

ORCP 4G

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Where out-of-state resident became director of Oregon corporation, put up collateral for corporate financing, and his corporation offered and sold securities in Oregon, sufficient contacts existed to subject nonresident to personal jurisdiction. Gardner v. Donovan, 47 Or App 97, 613 P2d 1097 (1980)

 

ORCP 4K

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Court retains personal jurisdiction over party to dissolution proceeding notwithstanding change in residency and passage of time. Carlin v. Carlin, 62 Or App 350, 660 P2d 204 (1983)

 

ORCP 4L

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Where jurisdiction was based on purchase in Oregon of products containing manufacturer’s components and injury was to Oregon resident, fact that accident did not occur in Oregon did not affect sufficiency of existing economic contacts. State ex rel Hydraulic Servocontrols v. Dale, 294 Or 381, 657 P2d 211 (1982)

 

      Jurisdiction over certain out-of-state utilities who executed net billing agreements and other power contracts with Bonneville Power Administration, located in Oregon, was consistent with federal due process. City of Springfield v. W.P.P.S.S., 564 F Supp 86 (1983)

 

      Where evidence showed that 1) defendant contacted and contracted with Oregon corporation that does business in all 50 states, 2) it agreed that contract was not binding until countersigned by plaintiff’s corporate officers, who countersigned in Oregon, 3) it contacted plaintiff in Oregon for parts and service personnel that were, in fact, sent from Oregon to Florida, and 4) it sent substantial monthly lease payments to plaintiff in Oregon during term of lease, contacts which are substantially relevant to cause of action occurred in Oregon and assertion of personal jurisdiction over defendant was proper. Morrow Crane Co. v. Biltmore Construction Co., 68 Or App 292, 680 P2d 1014 (1984)

 

      Act of making monthly payments to Oregon plaintiff is insufficient to require non-resident to litigate contract action in Oregon where plaintiff failed to prove that defendant sought or initiated contact. State ex rel Jones v. Crookham, 296 Or 735, 681 P2d 103 (1984)

 

      Only if guaranty plays integral part in significant economic consequences may contacts between forum state and foreign corporation be attributed to guarantors so as to provide constitutional basis for personal jurisdiction. Nike, Inc. v. Spencer, 75 Or App 362, 707 P2d 589 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

 

      In personal injury action resulting from fireworks discharge, personal jurisdiction over president of fireworks corporation could not be based on single visit to Oregon during which he promoted business. Rice v. Oriental Fireworks Co., 75 Or App 627, 707 P2d 1250 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Oregon courts did not have jurisdiction over Washington hospital and physicians for alleged malpractice committed in Washington while plaintiff was Washington resident and there was no connection between Oregon and injury and defendants were not present in state. Bachman v. Medical Engineering Corp., 81 Or App 85, 724 P2d 858 (1986)

 

      Where defendant, a Louisiana corporation, contacted plaintiff Oregon corporation many times by telephone and written means, ordered specially manufactured goods which required special design and preparations and then canceled order after plaintiff was committed to an order of customized materials, activities of defendant and consequences had substantial enough connections with forum state to make exercise of jurisdiction over defendant reasonable. Regal Manufacturing v. Louisiana Glass, Inc., 83 Or App 463, 731 P2d 1066 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Where action arose out of earlier Oregon action that defendant brought, Oregon Court had personal jurisdiction over Florida defendant. Heathman v. Heathman, 100 Or App 681, 788 P2d 475 (1990)

 

      Long-arm statute of State of Oregon is coextensive with limits of federal due process. Fone America, Inc. v. Integretel, Inc., 779 F Supp 497 (1991)

 

      Where defendant was corporate officer having contact with State of Oregon only in performance of official duties, fact that defendant was sole stockholder of corporation did not create personal jurisdiction over defendant. Sidco Industries, Inc. v. Wimar Tahoe Corp., 768 F Supp 1343 (1991)

 

      Federal due process clause requires both that defendant corporation purposefully directed its activities at residents of Oregon and that alleged injury arose out of or relates to activities conducted in Oregon. State ex rel Circus Circus Reno, Inc. v. Pope, 317 Or 151, 854 P2d 461 (1993)

 

      Satisfaction of requirement for establishing reasonable anticipation of being haled into Oregon court is congruent with satisfaction of minimum contacts standard. Horn v. Seacatcher Fisheries, Inc., 128 Or App 585, 876 P2d 352 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Where contract fortuitously calls for one-time performance of act within state rather than establishing ongoing interstate relationship, contract provision is insufficient minimum contact to confer jurisdiction. Sutherland v. Brennan, 321 Or 520, 901 P2d 240 (1995)