{
  "id": 1747015,
  "name": "Francine B. CARTER v. Thomas L. WILSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carter v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1983-04-04",
  "docket_number": "82-286",
  "first_page": "58",
  "last_page": "60",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "279 Ark. 58"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "648 S.W.2d 472"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "357 U.S. 235",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6162253
      ],
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/357/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 U.S. 310",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6157001
      ],
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/326/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 U.S. 714",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3383405
      ],
      "year": 1877,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/95/0714-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ark. L. Rev. 456",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "Ark. L. Rev.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 3516,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.794,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3022890523733237
    },
    "sha256": "7d314822db6f5161a5eedca99de4b51abc65767547fbf20774f48aa0f34e6d66",
    "simhash": "1:573f393e79695300",
    "word_count": 586
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:56.229407+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Francine B. CARTER v. Thomas L. WILSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Steele Hays, Justice.\nAppellant filed this suit in Pulaski County, Arkansas, where she resides, for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision which occurred in Pickens County, Alabama on September 13, 1980. The defendant (appellee) is a resident of Alabama and was served with summons in Alabama. The complaint asserts that jurisdiction is based on Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-610.1 (Repl. 1979). The defendant (appellee) moved to dismiss the suit pursuant to ARCP Rule 21 alleging the court had no jurisdiction over the defendant and the subject matter of the law suit. The trial judge granted the motion and appellant has appealed. We affirm.\nAppellant cites Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-2502, which lists a number of activities that will render a person answerable to suit in Arkansas, including a provision that a court of this State may exercise jurisdiction \u201con any other basis authorized by law.\u201d Appellant points to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-610.1 as such \u201cother basis.\u201d It reads:\nActions for damages for personal injury or death by wrongful act, where the accident which caused the injury or death occurred outside this State, shall be brought in the county in this State where the person injured or killed resided at the time of injury or in any county in which the defendant, or one [1] of several defendants, resides or is summoned.\nBut the argument has a fatal defect \u2014 \u00a7 27-610.1 is a venue statute and is not to be regarded as an attempt to give Arkansas courts jurisdiction over a non-resident motorist involved in an out-of-state collision. Section 27-610.1 assumes that jurisdiction exists over the defendant, and where that is so, the statute gives the plaintiff a choice of forums. See 15 Ark. L. Rev. 456: \u201cVenue Where Out-of-State Accident Gives Rise to Personal Injury or Wrongful Death Action.\u201d\nHere the appellee resides in Alabama, the accident occurred in Alabama and for the purposes of this case, we may assume the appellee has never been in Arkansas. It is thoroughly settled that under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, where a resident of another state has no contacts with Arkansas, engages in no activities that would establish a \u201cpresence\u201d here to render him amenable to suit, he is not subject to the in personam jurisdiction of this State. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877). International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). See Leflar, American Conflicts Law, 3rd Edition, Section 19.\nIf appellant could achieve her objective here, it would mean that a resident of California could motor to Maine, become involved in a collision, return to California and bring suit, thus forcing upon the Maine resident, not to mention the witnesses, the burden of defending a suit tried at the opposite end of the country.\nThose restrictions [the due process clause] are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the several states. However minimal the burden of defending in a foreign tribunal, a defendant may not be called upon to do so unless he has had \u201cminimal contacts\u201d with that State that are a prerequisite to its exercise of power over him. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) at 251.\nThe case was properly dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Steele Hays, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cole & Orintas, for appellant.",
      "Laser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Huckabay, P.A., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Francine B. CARTER v. Thomas L. WILSON\n82-286\n648 S.W.2d 472\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 4, 1983\nCole & Orintas, for appellant.\nLaser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Huckabay, P.A., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0058-01",
  "first_page_order": 82,
  "last_page_order": 84
}