{
  "id": 8524324,
  "name": "ETR CORPORATION v. WILSON WELDING SERVICE, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "ETR Corp. v. Wilson Welding Service, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1990-01-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 8918SC675",
  "first_page": "666",
  "last_page": "669",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "96 N.C. App. 666"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "38 N.C. App. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553662
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/38/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "471 U.S. 462",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6205101
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "473"
        },
        {
          "page": "541"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/471/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 U.S. 457",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6141572
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1940,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "463"
        },
        {
          "page": "283"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/311/0457-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 U.S. 310",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6157001
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1945,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "316",
          "parenthetical": "quoting from Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 85 L.Ed. 278, 283 (1940)"
        },
        {
          "page": "102",
          "parenthetical": "quoting from Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 85 L.Ed. 278, 283 (1940)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/326/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 S.E.2d 782",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "786"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 N.C. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4734507
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "366"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/318/0361-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 S.E.2d 260",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "262"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 S.E.2d 663",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "665"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4724089
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "476"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0474-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 N.C. App. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553662
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "331"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/38/0328-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 417,
    "char_count": 7698,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.742,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8740896738609296e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7267022131406117
    },
    "sha256": "74a2cd67f8b5ab8b0ce124d6357b457d499031d8da29e7454027ba272d42e773",
    "simhash": "1:f7bf775514efa75a",
    "word_count": 1210
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:35.242103+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHNSON and Cozort concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ETR CORPORATION v. WILSON WELDING SERVICE, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nThe issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction. Resolution of the question of in personam jurisdiction over a foreign corporation involves a two pronged test: (1) Whether North Carolina\u2019s \u201clong-arm\u201d statute permits courts in this jurisdiction to entertain the action; and (2) whether exercise of this jurisdictional power comports with due process of law. Miller v. Kite, 313 N.C. 474, 476, 329 S.E.2d 663, 665 (1985).\nI.\nPlaintiff asserts jurisdiction under G.S. Section l-75.4(l)d which states that the court has jurisdiction over the person of a party defendant when that defendant is \u201cengaged in substantial activity within this State, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise.\u201d We find that the defendant has engaged in \u201csubstantial\u201d activities within this state. Defendant\u2019s contacts with our state in connection with this cause of action were: (1) telephone conversations between defendant\u2019s representatives located in the state of Georgia and plaintiff\u2019s representatives located in High Point, North Carolina; (2) an invoice mailed by defendant from Georgia to plaintiff in North Carolina and payment of this invoice by a check mailed from North Carolina to defendant in Georgia.\nOther activities not related directly to this particular action in which defendant engaged in North Carolina were: (1) a service call on 11 October 1988 to perform emergency boiler repairs in Canton, North Carolina for another company; (2) the delivery of boiler parts by defendant to Oxford Industries in Burgaw, North Carolina. We hold that these contacts with the state are sufficient to constitute \u201csubstantial\u201d activity for purposes of invoking the court\u2019s in personam jurisdiction under G.S. Section l-75.4(l)d.\nPlaintiff has also alleged that it has jurisdiction under G.S. Section l-75.4(5)d. This statute provides for jurisdiction \u201cin any action which relates to goods, documents of title or other things of value shipped from this State by the plaintiff to the defendant on his order or direction.\u201d Plaintiff argues that its shipment of a check to defendant was at defendant\u2019s \u201corder\u201d and amounts to a \u201cthing of value\u201d for purposes of our statute. In Pope v. Pope, 38 N.C. App. 328, 331, 248 S.E.2d 260, 262 (1978), our Court held that money payments are a \u201cthing of value\u201d within G.S. Section l-75.4(5)c. This same construction applies to G.S. Section l-75.4(5)d. Therefore, we conclude that this case does meet the requirements of the long-arm statute for personal jurisdiction.\nII.\nThe second step of the inquiry is the determination of whether the court\u2019s exercise of in personam jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant is consistent with due process. Where the action arises out of defendant\u2019s contact with the forum state, the issue is one of \u201cspecific\u201d jurisdiction. Tom Togs, Inc. v. Ben Elias Industries Corp., 318 N.C. 361, 366, 348 S.E.2d 782, 786 (1986). To establish specific jurisdiction, the court analyzes the relationship among the parties, the cause of action, and the forum state. Id. It must be shown that the defendant has had \u201cminimum contacts\u201d with our state that satisfy \u201ctraditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.\u201d International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 90 L.Ed. 95, 102 (1945) (quoting from Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 85 L.Ed. 278, 283 (1940)). In the present case, defendant has engaged in several North Carolina business arrangements. On three occasions the defendant has entered the state and conducted relations with North Carolina businesses. It is generally conceded that a state has a \u201cmanifest interest\u201d in providing its residents with a convenient forum for addressing injuries inflicted by out-of-state actions. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 473, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 541 (1985). Defendant has failed to demonstrate any reason why the exercise of jurisdiction over it would be unfair. North Carolina is as convenient a forum as any to resolve this dispute. We find the defendant has had sufficient minimum contacts with this state to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it without violating the due process clause.\nAffirmed.\nJudges JOHNSON and Cozort concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "LEWIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harrison, North, Cooke & Landreth, by A. Wayland Cooke, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "James W. Workman, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ETR CORPORATION v. WILSON WELDING SERVICE, INC.\nNo. 8918SC675\n(Filed 4 January 1990)\n1. Process \u00a7 14.3 (NCI3d>\u2014 foreign corporation \u2014in personam jurisdiction \u2014contact sufficient\nThe contacts of a Georgia corporation with North Carolina were sufficient to constitute substantial activity for purposes of invoking in personam jurisdiction under N.C.G.S. l-75.4(l)d where there were telephone conversations between plaintiff\u2019s representatives in High Point and defendant\u2019s representatives in Georgia; an invoice was mailed from Georgia to North Carolina and a check from North Carolina to Georgia; defendant made a service call for boiler repairs in Canton, North Carolina for another company; and defendant delivered boiler parts to Oxford Industries in Burgaw, North Carolina.\nAm Jur 2d, Foreign Corporations \u00a7\u00a7 329, 330, 344, 345, 350.\n2. Process \u00a7 9.1 (NCI3d)\u2014 jurisdiction over nonresident defendant-money as thing of value\nThe requirements for obtaining long-arm jurisdiction under N.C.G.S. l-75.4(5)d were met when defendant sent a bill from Georgia to High Point, North Carolina and plaintiff then sent a check from High Point to Georgia. Pope v. Pope, 38 N.C. App. 328, held that payments are a thing of value within N.C.G.S. l-75.4(5)c, and the same construction applies to N.C.G.S. l-75.4(5)d.\nAm Jur 2d, Foreign Corporations \u00a7\u00a7 365, 368.\n3. Process \u00a7 14.3 (NCI3d); Constitutional Law \u00a7 24.7 (NCI3d| \u2014 foreign corporation \u2014 minimum contacts \u2014 evidence sufficient\nA defendant corporation had sufficient minimum contacts with North Carolina to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction without violating due process where defendant engaged in several North Carolina business arrangements and on three occasions entered the state and conducted relations with North Carolina businesses.\nAm Jur 2d, Foreign Corporations \u00a7\u00a7 318, 329.\nAppeal by defendant from Order entered 4 April 1989 by Judge Russell G. Walker, Jr. in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 December 1989.\nDefendant is a Georgia Corporation. In 1987, the defendant contracted to do certain work in Ballground, Georgia for the Gold Kist Corporation. Plaintiff, a North Carolina Corporation also had contractual relations with the Gold Kist Corporation on the same job. Defendant agreed with Gold Kist that it would deliver and install at the job site a Cyclotherm boiler. Defendant was instructed to invoice the boiler to plaintiff corporation. Subsequently, there were telephone communications between representatives of the defendant in Georgia and plaintiff in North Carolina concerning the price of the boiler. A bill was sent to ETR Corporation from defendant\u2019s office in Georgia on 31 March 1987; and in April, 1987 a check drawn on plaintiff\u2019s North Carolina bank was mailed to defendant in Georgia and negotiated by defendant through its Georgia bank.\nOn 24 March 1988, plaintiff filed suit in North Carolina against the defendant alleging breach of contract. On 25 May 1988, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s complaint on the grounds that the North Carolina court does not have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. On 4 April 1989, defendant\u2019s motion was denied. On 12 April 1989, defendant filed notice of appeal to this Court.\nHarrison, North, Cooke & Landreth, by A. Wayland Cooke, for plaintiff-appellee.\nJames W. Workman, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0666-01",
  "first_page_order": 698,
  "last_page_order": 701
}
