Hoskinson v. State of Cal.

Arizona Supreme Court

Hoskinson v. State of Cal.

812 P.2d 995, 168 Ariz. 177, 1991 Ariz. LEXIS 52

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1991

DocketCV-91-0030-PR

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 812 P.2d 995 (Hoskinson v. State of Cal.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoskinson v. State of Cal., 812 P.2d 995, 168 Ariz. 177, 1991 Ariz. LEXIS 52 (Ark. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Petition for Review came before the court at conference on June 11, 1991. On consideration,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Review is denied. Vice Chief Justice Feldman and Justice Cameron voted to grant for the following reasons:

The exercise of in personam jurisdiction is based on considerations of due process and on principles of “fundamental fairness.” State v. Velasco, 165 Ariz. 480, 487, 799 P.2d 821, 824 (1990). The court of appeals thus concludes that it is fundamentally unfair and would thus violate due process for Arizona to assert jurisdiction over the instant case.

Our view is quite the opposite. This tort occurred in Arizona, the victim resided in Arizona, and her family are residents of Arizona. The alleged tortious conduct would foreseeably cause the very harm that occurred in Arizona.

Given modern conditions, it is difficult to see why it is unfair to require these defendants to answer and defend in Arizona. Logistics certainly present no greater difficulty for the governmental defendants and even the individual defendants to appear and defend in Tucson than in Yreka, Riverside, or Azusa. It is no longer necessary to send counsel instructions via Wells Fargo. The telephone, the facsimile machine, and *178 the photocopier answer the logistical problems as easily for lawsuits pending in Arizona as those in Imperial County, California. Law firms capable of handling cases such as this practice on a national and regional basis, and defendants will not be deprived of competent counsel even if forced to respond in Arizona.

Depriving these victims of a forum to redress their grievances is a greater violation of due process than compelling the defendants, whose conduct may have caused this tragedy, to defend themselves in Arizona. Reality tells us that it is time to reexamine some of our previous conclusions, even those in so recent a case as Batton v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 153 Ariz. 268, 736 P.2d 2 (1987). If this is not possible under the current decisions of the United States Supreme Court, then, with all due respect, we suggest that the time may have come for that Court to reconsider the issue. However, as Judge Hathaway points out in his dissent, we cannot be sure the Supreme Court’s decisions require dismissal of this action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

We would grant review.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The Petition for Review came before the court at conference on June 11, 1991. On consideration,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Review is denied. Vice Chief Justice Feldman and Justice Cameron voted to grant for the following reasons:

The exercise of in personam jurisdiction is based on considerations of due process and on principles of “fundamental fairness.” State v. Velasco, 165 Ariz. 480, 487, 799 P.2d 821, 824 (1990). The court of appeals thus concludes that it is fundamentally unfair and would thus violate due process for Arizona to assert jurisdiction over the instant case.

Our view is quite the opposite. This tort occurred in Arizona, the victim resided in Arizona, and her family are residents of Arizona. The alleged tortious conduct would foreseeably cause the very harm that occurred in Arizona.

Given modern conditions, it is difficult to see why it is unfair to require these defendants to answer and defend in Arizona. Logistics certainly present no greater difficulty for the governmental defendants and even the individual defendants to appear and defend in Tucson than in Yreka, Riverside, or Azusa. It is no longer necessary to send counsel instructions via Wells Fargo. The telephone, the facsimile machine, and *178 the photocopier answer the logistical problems as easily for lawsuits pending in Arizona as those in Imperial County, California. Law firms capable of handling cases such as this practice on a national and regional basis, and defendants will not be deprived of competent counsel even if forced to respond in Arizona.

Depriving these victims of a forum to redress their grievances is a greater violation of due process than compelling the defendants, whose conduct may have caused this tragedy, to defend themselves in Arizona. Reality tells us that it is time to reexamine some of our previous conclusions, even those in so recent a case as Batton v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 153 Ariz. 268, 736 P.2d 2 (1987). If this is not possible under the current decisions of the United States Supreme Court, then, with all due respect, we suggest that the time may have come for that Court to reconsider the issue. However, as Judge Hathaway points out in his dissent, we cannot be sure the Supreme Court’s decisions require dismissal of this action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

We would grant review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 P.2d 995, 168 Ariz. 177, 1991 Ariz. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoskinson-v-state-of-cal-ariz-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack