|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Hilary P. Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company|
|Supreme Court Case 2|
|Michael L. Rosenblum and Kathryn H. Clarke on behalf of Hilary P. Robinson|
Janet M. Schroer and Marjorie A. Speirs on behalf of Grand Teton Harley-Davidson & Buell
Statement of Issues:
|Hilary P. Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company (S060226) (A143843) (appeal|
from Multnomah County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 247 Or App 587, 270 P3d 367 (2012)).
Plaintiff Hilary P. Robinson has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Grand Teton Cycles, LLC on the ground that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant under Oregon's "long-arm" statute, ORCP 4 L.
On review, the issue is:
Whether it is consistent with due process and ORCP 4 L for an Oregon court to exercise jurisdiction where a defendant allegedly has purposefully directed its activities toward Oregon residents and those contacts "relate to, " but are not "substantively relevant" to, the plaintiff's claim.
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: