Johnson v. Byrd

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Johnson v. Byrd

210 So. 3d 800, 2017 La. LEXIS 467

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided February 24, 2017·No. No. 2017-CC-0115·Published

Opinion

Hughes, J.,

would grant the writ and assigns reasons.

|,I respectfully dissent and would grant the writ. The defendant did not solicit or conduct business in Louisiana. He did not advertise in Louisiana; his business was known by “word of mouth.” He did not seek the business, it came to him. His posture was passive, not active.

Furthermore, the action involved, a dog bite, has nothing to do with his engine repair business. Had the dog bitten a neighbor, the mailman, or a salesman the result should be the same. Jurisdiction does not constitutionally lie in Louisiana under these facts.

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

Hughes, J.,

would grant the writ and assigns reasons.

|,I respectfully dissent and would grant the writ. The defendant did not solicit or conduct business in Louisiana. He did not advertise in Louisiana; his business was known by “word of mouth.” He did not seek the business, it came to him. His posture was passive, not active.

Furthermore, the action involved, a dog bite, has nothing to do with his engine repair business. Had the dog bitten a neighbor, the mailman, or a salesman the result should be the same. Jurisdiction does not constitutionally lie in Louisiana under these facts.

Johnson v. Byrd, 210 So. 3d 800, 2017 La. LEXIS 467 (La. 2017).

Pincite

210 So. 3d 800 (Johnson v. Byrd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.