Sophie Scheidt & John Scheidt v. Spike Young & Victoria F. Young, Doing Bus. as Merry Hill Lodge, 389 F.2d 58 (3d Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Sophie Scheidt & John Scheidt v. Spike Young & Victoria F. Young, Doing Bus. as Merry Hill Lodge, 389 F.2d 58 (3d Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 23 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC, 884 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2016)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 60 Determining minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction12 citing casesadvertisements in out-of-state newspaper, telephone conversations to resident of forum state, receipt of deposit sent from resident of forum state did not constitute acts by which defendant purposefully availed itself of privilege of conducting business within forum state2 citing courts put it this way
  • Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC, 884 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2016).published
    (holding that “advertisements in an out of state newspaper circulated in [the forum state], ... [is a] peripheral occurrence[] and do[es] not constitute some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the p…)
  • HVLP02, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC, 187 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (D. Neb. 2016).published
    (holding that a defendant was not suhject to personal jurisdiction on the basis of advertisements it placed in a New York newspaper that also had circulation in the forum state)
  • Decker v. Circus Circus Hotel, 49 F. Supp. 2d 743 (D.N.J. 1999).published
    George’s School of Medicine Ltd., 773 F.2d 539 , 542 (3d Cir.1985); Scheidt v. Young, 389 F.2d 58, 60 (3d Cir.1968); cf. Giangola v. Walt Disney World Co. 753 F.Supp. 148, 156 (D.N.J.1990)(denying personal jurisdiction even where defendant…
  • Covenant Bank for Sav. v. Cohen, 806 F. Supp. 52 (D.N.J. 1992).published
    Time Share Vacation Club, 735 F.2d at 66 n. 8; Reliance Steel Products, 675 F.2d at 589 ; Scheidt v. Young, 389 F.2d 58, 60 (3d Cir.1968); Giangola, 753 F.Supp. at 155 .
  • Par. v. Mertes, 269 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).published 2 cites
    See Benjamin v. Western Boat Building Corp., 472 F.2d 723, 729-30 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 830 , 94 S.Ct. 60 , 38 L.Ed.2d 64 (1973); Hamilton Brothers, Inc. v. Peterson, 445 F.2d 1334 , 1336 (5th Cir.1971); Smith v Piper Aircraft…
  • Aaron Ferer & Sons Co., Debtor & Debtor in Possession v. Atlas Scrap Iron & Metal Co., Aaron Ferer & Sons Co., Debtor & Debtor in Possession v. Becker Metals Corp., Aaron Ferer & Sons Co., Debtor & Debtor in Possession v. Wimco Metals, Inc., Aaron Ferer & Sons Co., Debtor & Debtor in Possession v. Sitkin Smelting & Refining Co., 558 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1977).published
    See Benjamin v. Western Boat Building Corp., 472 F.2d 723, 729-30 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 830 , 94 S.Ct. 60 , 38 L.Ed.2d 64 (1973); Hamilton Brothers, Inc. v. Peterson, 445 F.2d 1334 , 1336 (5th Cir. 1971); Smith v. Piper Aircra…
  • Aaron Ferer & Sons Co. v. Atlas Scrap Iron & Metal Co., 558 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1977).published
    See Benjamin v. Western Boat Building Corp., 472 F.2d 723, 729-30 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 830 , 94 S.Ct. 60 , 38 L.Ed.2d 64 (1973); Hamilton Brothers, Inc. v. Peterson, 445 F.2d 1334 , 1336 (5th Cir. 1971); Smith v. Piper Aircra…
  • Deloro Smelting & Refining Co. v. Engelhard Minerals & Chemicals Corp., 313 F. Supp. 470 (D.N.J. 1970).published
    As stated by our Court of Appeals in Scheidt v. Young, 389 F.2d 58, 60 (3 Cir. 1968), telephone and mail solicitations of New Jersey customers are but “ * * peripheral occurrences and do not constitute ‘some act by which the defendant purp…
  • Jensen v. RLK & CO., 534 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).published
    (advertisements in out-of-state newspaper, telephone conversations to resident of forum state, receipt of deposit sent from resident of forum state did not constitute acts by which defendant purposefully availed itself o…)
  • Jenson v. R.L.K. & Co., 534 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).published
    (advertisements in out-of-state newspaper, telephone conversations to resident of forum state, receipt of deposit sent from resident of forum state did not constitute acts by which defendant purposefully availed itself o…)
Show 2 more citing cases
  • Giangola v. Walt Disney World Co., 753 F. Supp. 148 (D.N.J. 1990).published 2 cites
    See Scheidt v. Young, 389 F.2d 58, 60 (3d Cir.1968); Wright v. American Standard, Inc., 637 F.Supp. 241, 244 (E.D.Pa.1985); cf. Hendrickson v. Reg O Co., 657 F.2d 9, 13 (3d Cir.1981); Rutherford v. Sherburne Corp., 616 F.Supp. 1456, 1460-6…
  • Kerrigan v. Clarke Gravely Corp., 71 F.R.D. 480 (M.D. Pa. 1975).published
    See Scheidt v. Young, 389 F.2d 58, 60 (3d Cir. 1968).
At page 59 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Stern v. Gobeloff, 332 F. Supp. 909 (D. Md. 1971).published
    See, e. g., International Shoe Company v. Washington, supra 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. at 158 ; *913 Scheidt v. Young, 389 F.2d 58, 59 (3rd Cir. 1968); Morgan v. Heckle, 171 F.Supp. 482 (E.D.Ill.1959).
Other citing cases7 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sophie SCHEIDT and John Scheidt, Appellants,
v.
Spike YOUNG and Victoria F. Young, Doing Business as Merry Hill Lodge
16423_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jan 5, 1968.
Published opinion
389 F.2d 58
1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8510
Robert A. Elkins, Elkins & Elkins, Jersey City, N. J., for appellants., David F. Binder, Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg, Philadelphia, Pa.. (Albert L. Bricklin, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.
Hastie, Freedman, Van Dusen.
Cited by 42 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this diversity case the district court of New Jersey quashed service of process on defendants in Pennsylvania, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiffs allege that they are citizens of New Jersey and that defendants are citizens of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff, Sophie Scheidt, seeks damages for injury which she incurred in a softball game at defendants’ Merry Hill Lodge in Cresco, Pennsylvania, allegedly as a result of their negligence while she was a paying guest at the lodge. John Scheidt, her husband, seeks damages for the loss of his wife’s services and society.

Extraterritorial service of process is authorized by Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed in the statute or rule [of the state in which the district court sits].” [1] New Jersey appears to have extended its extraterritorial service to the full extent permitted by due process. [2]

[*60] Plaintiffs rely on the following facts to sustain the service. Upon reading defendants’ advertisement in the New York Daily News, a New York newspaper which is also circulated in New Jersey, Mrs. Scheidt called defendants at a Pennsylvania telephone number given in the advertisement, and as Mrs. Scheidt avers, “came to a definite agreement as to our accommodations, date of arrival, length of stay and rate. There was absolutely no condition attached, merely a request that we telegraph a $35.00 deposit, which we promptly did.” Mrs. Scheidt has seen the advertisement both before and since this occasion. After the accident representatives of the defendants and their insurer called on Mrs. Scheidt regarding it.

These circumstances do not render defendants subject to extraterritorial service of process. Defendants’ advertisements in an out of state newspaper circulated in New Jersey, plaintiffs’ telephone conversation with them at the Pennsylvania number listed in the advertisements, defendants’ receipt of a deposit sent from New Jersey and the visits to New Jersey by representatives of defendants regarding the accident are peripheral occurrences and do not constitute “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” [3] New Jersey therefore did not have the necessary “minimum contacts” to sustain jurisdiction over the person and service of process required by due process, [4] and service was properly quashed.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

1

. See also Rule 4(f), which provides:

“All process other than a subpoena may be served anywhere within the territorial limits of the state in which the district court is held, and, when authorized by a statute of the United States or by these rules, beyond the territorial limits of that state. * * * ”
2

. Rule 4:4-4 of the New Jersey Civil Practice Rules provides:

“Summons. Personal Service
“(a) Upon an individual * * * by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to him personally; or by leaving a copy thereof at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some competent member of his family of the age of 14 years or over then residing therein; or by delivering a copy thereof to a person authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on his behalf;
* * * * *
“ (e) Upon a partnership, by serving, in the manner prescribed by paragraph (a), a partner, a managing or general agent or an officer; or, if service cannot be made upon any of the foregoing, then, subject to due process of law, by mailing, registered mail return receipt requested, a copy of the summons and complaint to a registered agent for service, or its principal place of business, or its registered office.
$ 3{C $ $ *
“(h) Upon an individual engaged in a business within the State in an action arising out of the conduct of such business, by serving in the manner prescribed in paragraph (a), the individual, or a managing or general agent of[*60] the individual employed in such business; * * *.
s¡« * * sj: *
“(j) Whenever it shall appear by affidavit of the attorney for the plaintiff or of any person having knowledge of the facts, that, after diligent inquiry and effort, an individual cannot be served in this State under any of the preceding paragraphs of this rule, then, consistent with due process of law, service may be made by mailing, registered mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual addressed to his dwelling house or usual place of abode. * * * ”
4

. Hanson v. Denckla, supra. See International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957); Rosenblatt v. American Cyanamid Co., 86 S.Ct. 1, 15 L.Ed.2d 39, Goldberg, J., in chambers, appeal dismissed 382 U.S. 110, 86 S.Ct. 256 (1965). See generally Currie, The Growth of the Long Arm: Eight Years of Extended Jurisdiction in Illinois, 1963 U.Ill.L.Forum 533 (1963); von Mehren & Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 1121 (1966).