Narrative Opinion Summary
The court of appeals' judgment is reversed, citing the precedent set in Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Power Engineering Group, Inc., and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. Chief Justice Moyer and Justices Pfeifer, O’Connor, and O’Donnell concur with the decision, while Justices Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger dissent. Justice Cupp did not participate in the decision. Legal representation for the appellee includes Roderick Linton, L.L.P., Jason E. Hickman, and Tamara A. O’Brien. The appellants are represented by Fanger Law Office, L.L.C., with Jeffrey J. Fanger and Kelly G. Adelman.
Legal Issues Addressed
Judicial Concurrence and Dissentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision to reverse and remand was supported by the majority of the justices, with two justices dissenting and one not participating.
Reasoning: Chief Justice Moyer and Justices Pfeifer, O’Connor, and O’Donnell concur with the decision, while Justices Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger dissent. Justice Cupp did not participate in the decision.
Lack of Personal Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over the parties involved, leading to the dismissal of the case.
Reasoning: The court of appeals' judgment is reversed, citing the precedent set in Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Power Engineering Group, Inc., and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss due to a lack of personal jurisdiction.
Precedent in Jurisdictional Determinationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court's decision was based on the precedent from a similar jurisdictional case, indicating the reliance on established legal standards.
Reasoning: The court of appeals' judgment is reversed, citing the precedent set in Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Power Engineering Group, Inc.