Rosenlund v. Transnational Insurance

237 F. Supp. 599
CourtDistrict Court, D. Oregon
DecidedNovember 3, 1964
DocketCiv. No. 64-379
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 237 F. Supp. 599 (Rosenlund v. Transnational Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rosenlund v. Transnational Insurance, 237 F. Supp. 599 (D. Or. 1964).

Opinion

KILKENNY, District Judge.

Plaintiff, in his complaint, charges that defendant Crittenden, acting for and in behalf of defendant Transnational, wilfully and maliciously defamed the plaintiff by speaking and publishing, in the state of Oregon, defamatory words concerning plaintiff on at least three occasions. The alleged defamatory words were uttered in connection with Crittenden’s transaction of business in the state of Oregon for Transnational.

Crittenden’s motion to quash the service of process in the state of California, challenges the jurisdiction of this court over his person. Defendant has never been a resident or a citizen of the state of Oregon. He is a resident of the state of California and the process was served on him in that state. His affidavit indicates that he has no property of any kind located in the state of Oregon.

Plaintiff claims jurisdiction under ORS 14.035, as made applicable to actions in federal courts under F.R.Civ. P. 4(e) and 4(f). The Oregon legislation is set forth in a footnote to Hiersche v. Seamless Rubber Co., 9 Cir., 225 F.Supp. 682, 684, a decision of this court announced on November 21, 1963. It is my belief that the court has jurisdiction under either, or both, of the following provisions of the Oregon statute.

“(a) The transaction of any business within the state;
“(b) The commission of a tortious act within this state; * *

Furthermore, the legislation, as bearing on the facts of this case, is not unconstitutional.

The court has jurisdiction. The motion to quash is denied.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

McCully-Smith Associates, Inc. v. Armour & Company
358 F. Supp. 331 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1973)
Elizabeth Taylor v. Portland Paramount Corporation
383 F.2d 634 (Ninth Circuit, 1967)
Rake v. City Lumber Co. of Bridgeport, Inc.
283 F. Supp. 870 (D. Oregon, 1967)
David v. London Shirt Co.
259 F. Supp. 848 (D. Oregon, 1966)
Richey v. Sumoge
257 F. Supp. 32 (D. Oregon, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 F. Supp. 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenlund-v-transnational-insurance-ord-1964.