failure to satisfy requirement in Oregon

2022Cite as 369 Or 628 (2022) 645 The Court also held that, where there is a failure to satisfy the requirement that only the named officials have author- ity to apply for a wiretap, that failure requires suppression: “We are confident that the provision for pre-application approval was intended to play a central role in the stat- utory scheme and that suppression must follow when it is shown that this statutory requirement has been ignored.” Id. at 528.

2019The Oregon Supreme Court has observed, "Because Oregon does not have a due process clause in its constitution that would impose a state constitutional limit on jurisdiction, [Oregon courts] are guided by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that address the constitutionality of an invocation of jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. , 354 Or. 572 , 577, 316 P.3d 287 (2013).

2019The Oregon Supreme Court has observed, "Because Oregon does not have a due process clause in its constitution that would impose a state constitutional limit on jurisdiction, [Oregon courts] are guided by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that address the constitutionality of an invocation of jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. , 354 Or. 572 , 577, 316 P.3d 287 (2013).

2013See Circus Circus, 317 Or at 154-55 (noting the distinction between “general” and “specific” jurisdiction under ORCP 4); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 US 408 , 414 nn 8, 9, 104 S Ct 1868 , 80 L Ed 2d 404 (1984) (explaining the difference between general and specific long-arm jurisdiction). 4 In following a substantive relevance test below, the Court of Appeals recognized that this court, in Michelin , referenced but “did not expressly adopt *581 ‘substantive relevance’ as the test for ‘arising out of or relating to.’” Robinson, 247 Or App at 592 .

2013Accordingly, the trial court had jurisdiction over defendants Sirmons and Estes if the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 3 Under the Due Process Clause, “a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum State.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsen, 444 US 286, 291 , 100 S Ct 559 , 62 L Ed 2d 490 (1980) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310, 316 , 66 S Ct 154, 158 , 90 L Ed 95 (1945)); see Willemsen v. Inva

2013Accordingly, the trial court had jurisdiction over defendants Sirmons and Estes if the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 3 Under the Due Process Clause, “a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum State.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsen, 444 US 286, 291 , 100 S Ct 559 , 62 L Ed 2d 490 (1980) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310, 316 , 66 S Ct 154, 158 , 90 L Ed 95 (1945)); see Willemsen v. Inva

2013See Circus Circus, 317 Or at 154-55 (noting the distinction between “general” and “specific” jurisdiction under ORCP 4); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 US 408 , 414 nn 8, 9, 104 S Ct 1868 , 80 L Ed 2d 404 (1984) (explaining the difference between general and specific long-arm jurisdiction). 4 In following a substantive relevance test below, the Court of Appeals recognized that this court, in Michelin , referenced but “did not expressly adopt *581 ‘substantive relevance’ as the test for ‘arising out of or relating to.’” Robinson, 247 Or App at 592 .

2013See Circus Circus, 317 Or at 154-55 (noting the distinction between “general” and “specific” jurisdiction under ORCP 4); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 US 408 , 414 nn 8, 9, 104 S Ct 1868 , 80 L Ed 2d 404 (1984) (explaining the difference between general and specific long-arm jurisdiction). 4 In following a substantive relevance test below, the Court of Appeals recognized that this court, in Michelin , referenced but “did not expressly adopt *581 ‘substantive relevance’ as the test for ‘arising out of or relating to.’” Robinson, 247 Or App at 592 .

2013Accordingly, the trial court had jurisdiction over defendants Sirmons and Estes if the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 3 Under the Due Process Clause, “a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum State.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsen, 444 US 286, 291 , 100 S Ct 559 , 62 L Ed 2d 490 (1980) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310, 316 , 66 S Ct 154, 158 , 90 L Ed 95 (1945)); see Willemsen v. Inva

2013Accordingly, the trial court had jurisdiction over defendants Sirmons and Estes if the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 3 Under the Due Process Clause, “a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum State.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsen, 444 US 286, 291 , 100 S Ct 559 , 62 L Ed 2d 490 (1980) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310, 316 , 66 S Ct 154, 158 , 90 L Ed 95 (1945)); see Willemsen v. Inva

2012Smith v. O’Byrne, 113 Or App 128, 131 , 831 P2d 709 , rev den, 313 Or 627 (1992). 2 The inquiry to determine whether an extension of jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant comports with due process has two parts: “First, the defendant must have ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state. ‘Minimum contacts’ will be found where the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ its activities at residents of the forum state and where the litigation ‘arises out of or relates to’ those activities. * * * Second, even if minimum contacts exist, the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable; in the light

2012Smith v. O’Byrne, 113 Or App 128, 131 , 831 P2d 709 , rev den, 313 Or 627 (1992). 2 The inquiry to determine whether an extension of jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant comports with due process has two parts: “First, the defendant must have ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state. ‘Minimum contacts’ will be found where the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ its activities at residents of the forum state and where the litigation ‘arises out of or relates to’ those activities. * * * Second, even if minimum contacts exist, the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable; in the light

1996Horn and Horn, 97 Or App 177, 180 , 775 P2d 338 , rev den 308 Or 465 (1989).

1996Horn and Horn, 97 Or App 177, 180 , 775 P2d 338 , rev den 308 Or 465 (1989).

1994In Melvin v. Kim's Restaurant, Inc., 308 Or. 177, 182 , 776 P.2d 1286 (1989), the court held that disputed factual issues under ORCP 21 A(8) cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

1994In Melvin v. Kim's Restaurant, Inc., 308 Or. 177, 182 , 776 P.2d 1286 (1989), the court held that disputed factual issues under ORCP 21 A(8) cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

1987We turn 1 to the catchall provision, ORCP 4L, which provides jurisdiction “Notwithstanding a failure to satisfy the requirement of sections B. through K. of this rule, in any action where prosecution of the action against a defendant in this state is not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States.” State ex rel White Lbr. v. Sulmonetti, 252 Or 121, 127 , 448 P2d 571 (1968), sets out the requirements for the constitutional exercise of jurisdiction in a case involving a single transaction: *468 “First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself o

1987We turn 1 to the catchall provision, ORCP 4L, which provides jurisdiction “Notwithstanding a failure to satisfy the requirement of sections B. through K. of this rule, in any action where prosecution of the action against a defendant in this state is not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States.” State ex rel White Lbr. v. Sulmonetti, 252 Or 121, 127 , 448 P2d 571 (1968), sets out the requirements for the constitutional exercise of jurisdiction in a case involving a single transaction: *468 “First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself o

1985State ex rel Jones v. Crookham, 296 Or 735, 738 , 681 P2d 103 (1984); State ex rel Sweere v. Crookham, 289 Or 3, 7 , 609 P2d 361 (1980).

1985State ex rel Jones v. Crookham, 296 Or 735, 738 , 681 P2d 103 (1984); State ex rel Sweere v. Crookham, 289 Or 3, 7 , 609 P2d 361 (1980).

1985State ex rel Jones v. Crookham, 296 Or 735, 738 , 681 P2d 103 (1984); State ex rel Sweere v. Crookham, 289 Or 3, 7 , 609 P2d 361 (1980).

1985State ex rel Jones v. Crookham, 296 Or 735, 738 , 681 P2d 103 (1984); State ex rel Sweere v. Crookham, 289 Or 3, 7 , 609 P2d 361 (1980).

1984State ex rel Michelin v. Wells, 294 Or 296, 299 , 657 P2d 207 (1982).

1984State ex rel Michelin v. Wells, 294 Or 296, 299 , 657 P2d 207 (1982).