Discovery
Civ-Pro
Case Summary |
|
0533 A Hawaii attorney who came to California to appear at the deposition of a client that he was representing in litigation in the Hawaii courts did not thereby make sufficient contact with the state of California to be subject to the jurisdiction of California courts in a subsequent action by the client against the attorney.CitationEDMUNDS v SUPERIOR COURT (Minimum Contacts) 24 CA4 221 [See: Wolfe v City 217 CA3 541; Sibley v SuperCt 16 C3 442] |
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
Finz Case Law Summaries (Finz Advance Tapes)
|
|||||
Copyright by Pincus Legal Education, Inc. ©1992 - 2022
|
|||||