Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a foreign corporation, the petitioner, challenges the respondent court’s decision to deny a motion for rehearing concerning a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction. The underlying dispute involves Michigan residents injured in Arizona due to an explosion allegedly caused by the petitioner's employee. The critical issue revolves around whether personal jurisdiction in Arizona can be established over the petitioner, who lacks business ties, operations, or property within the state. The court evaluates arguments from the real parties in interest, who cite the petitioner's broad business presence across states, the residency of one injured plaintiff in Arizona, and the foreseeability of litigation in Arizona. However, the court finds these arguments insufficient for establishing jurisdiction, referencing the *World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson* precedent, which clarifies that mere foreseeability does not confer jurisdiction. The court further distinguishes this case from *Anchor Hocking*, undermining the argument that jurisdiction should follow the chattel. Concluding that personal jurisdiction in Arizona is lacking, the court vacates the denial of the motion for rehearing and orders dismissal of the case. Judges Hathaway and Howard concur with the decision, reinforcing the application of jurisdictional principles in multistate business contexts.
Legal Issues Addressed
Distinguishing Jurisdictional Precedentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court distinguishes the current case from *Anchor Hocking*, rejecting the notion that jurisdiction follows the chattel involved in the accident.
Reasoning: The court distinguishes this case from *Anchor Hocking*, stating that the rationale that jurisdiction follows the chattel is no longer valid.
Foreseeability and Personal Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Foreseeability alone is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, as reinforced by the precedent set in *World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson*.
Reasoning: The court finds these arguments unpersuasive, referencing *World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson*, which emphasizes that mere foreseeability of an event occurring in a state does not establish personal jurisdiction.
Non-appealability of Denial of Motion for Rehearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court assumes jurisdiction and grants relief despite the non-appealability of the motion for rehearing.
Reasoning: The court recognizes that the denial of such a motion is non-appealable, yet assumes jurisdiction and grants relief.
Personal Jurisdiction in Multistate Operationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considers the lack of business operations, offices, agents, or property in Arizona and absence of revenue from sales in the state to determine the lack of personal jurisdiction over the petitioner.
Reasoning: Petitioner has no business operations, offices, agents, or property in Arizona and does not earn revenue from sales in the state.