|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Willemsen v. Invacare Corporation|
|Portland Community College - Cascadia|
|Jeffery A. Bowersox, Richard C. Pierce and Kathryn H. Clarke on behalf of Jeffrey Willemsen|
Jeffery A. Bowersox, Richard C. Pierce and Kathryn H. Clarke on behalf of James Willemsen
Jonathan M. Hoffman on behalf of China Terminal & Electric Corp
Jonathan M. Hoffman on behalf of CTE Tech Corp
Statement of Issues:
|Jeffrey Willemsen v. Invacare Corporation (S059201) (original mandamus proceeding; order from Multnomah County Circuit Court).|
Relators China Terminal & Electric Corp. and CTE Tech Corp., Taiwanese corporations that are defendants in a product liability case in Oregon, challenge, via a petition for writ of mandamus, a trial court order that had denied their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Oregon Supreme Court originally denied the petition on March 7, 2011. Subsequently, relator petitioned for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court. On October 3, 2011, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Oregon Supreme Court, and remanded the case to the Oregon Supreme Court for further consideration in light of its subsequent opinion in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 US __, 131 S Ct 2780, 180 L Ed 2d 765 (June 27, 2011). The Oregon Supreme Court has now allowed the petition and issued an alternative writ of mandamus.
The issue in this mandamus proceeding is whether the trial court's determination that it had personal jurisdiction over relators as foreign corporations for purposes of an Oregon tort action is correct in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Nicastro.
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: