Smith v. Lyon

Clinton County Court of Common Pleas

Smith v. Lyon

22 Pa. D. & C.3d 238, 1982 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 479

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clinton County

DecidedApril 2, 1982

Docketno. 225-81

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Pa. D. & C.3d 238 (Smith v. Lyon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clinton County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Lyon, 22 Pa. D. & C.3d 238, 1982 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 479 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P.J.,

And now, it is hereby ordered that defendant’s prehminary objection as to the court’s jurisdiction be granted and plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. The within order is being entered for the following reason:

42 Pa.C.S.A. §5322(b) states that the jurisdiction of the tribunals of the Commonwealth “may be based upon the most minimum contact with this Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States.” The minimum contacts requirement for in personam jurisdiction is not met merely by defendant’s entry into Pennsylvania in order to exercise visitation with his children. The contract in dispute was formed on July 26,1973 in New York by New York residents and was intended to be completed in New York. Defendant had no control over his ex-wife’s move into Pennsylvania, and therefore, by exercising visitation, he is not “purposefully availing himself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). See [239]*239also Kenny v. Alexson Equipment Company, Pa__, 432 A. 2d 974 (1981). To hold otherwise would force defendant to choose between seeing his children and thereby subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts or not seeing them, thus avoiding Pennsylvania jurisdiction.

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

BROWN, P.J.,

And now, it is hereby ordered that defendant’s prehminary objection as to the court’s jurisdiction be granted and plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. The within order is being entered for the following reason:

42 Pa.C.S.A. §5322(b) states that the jurisdiction of the tribunals of the Commonwealth “may be based upon the most minimum contact with this Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States.” The minimum contacts requirement for in personam jurisdiction is not met merely by defendant’s entry into Pennsylvania in order to exercise visitation with his children. The contract in dispute was formed on July 26,1973 in New York by New York residents and was intended to be completed in New York. Defendant had no control over his ex-wife’s move into Pennsylvania, and therefore, by exercising visitation, he is not “purposefully availing himself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). See [239]*239also Kenny v. Alexson Equipment Company, Pa__, 432 A. 2d 974 (1981). To hold otherwise would force defendant to choose between seeing his children and thereby subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts or not seeing them, thus avoiding Pennsylvania jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Pa. D. & C.3d 238, 1982 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-lyon-pactcomplclinto-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack