Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantjurisdictionnegligencemotionwrit of mandamus
contractdefendantjurisdictionstatutemotion

Related Cases

DeBry v. Transamerica Corp., 601 F.2d 480
View Case »
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689, 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,353, 74 USLW 4257, 152 Lab.Cas. P 60,203, 24 IER Cases 737, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4453, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6495, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 203
View Case »
The Antelope, 1 Ben. 521, 1 F.Cas. 1041, No. 481
View Case »
Carnley v. Aid to Hospitals, Inc., 975 F.Supp. 252, 39 Fed.R.Serv.3d 318
View Case »
Wiener v. Specific Pharmaceuticals, 298 N.Y. 346, 83 N.E.2d 673
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Munley v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of State in and for County of Washoe, 104 Nev. 492, 761 P.2d 414

Facts

On May 12, 1987, Emmett Munley, a Nevada resident, filed a complaint against Trimont Land Company, operating as Northstar, a California ski resort. Munley alleged that he was injured on January 14, 1987, due to the negligent management and operation of the ski chair lifts by Northstar's employees. Northstar moved to quash service of process, arguing that the Nevada court lacked personal jurisdiction over it, as its only contacts with Nevada were advertising and promotional activities.

The evidence presented to the district court shows that Northstar's contacts with Nevada consisted solely of advertising and promotional activities. These activities included continuous membership in the Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce since 1984, the maintenance of a contract with a Reno outdoor advertising company, the placement of one advertisement in the Las Vegas Review Journal, the placement of an advertisement in the Reno telephone directory, and the distribution of brochures to several ski shops and sporting goods stores in the Reno area.

Issue

Did the Nevada district court have personal jurisdiction over Northstar based on its promotional activities in Nevada?

Petitioner contends that, based upon Northstar's business activities in Nevada, the district court should have asserted personal jurisdiction over Northstar pursuant to NRS 14.065(2)(a), Nevada's long arm statute.

Rule

Under NRS 14.065(2)(a), a district court can assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the cause of action arises from the defendant's business activities in Nevada.

NRS 14.065(2)(a) authorizes a district court to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has transacted business in Nevada, if the cause of action arises from those business activities.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Munley's cause of action arose from Northstar's promotional activities in Nevada. It concluded that even if Northstar's activities constituted 'transacting business,' Munley failed to demonstrate a direct connection between those activities and his injuries, which were caused by alleged negligence in California. The court emphasized that promotional activities alone do not confer jurisdiction if the cause of action is unrelated.

Assuming, arguendo, that Northstar's promotional activities in Nevada constituted “transacting business,” petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his cause of action arose from these activities. In particular, we note that petitioner alleged in his complaint that his injuries were proximately caused by the negligent management, maintenance and operation of Northstar's ski chair lifts in California.

Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court denied Munley's petition for a writ of mandamus, affirming the district court's decision that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Northstar.

Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, we deny this petition.

Who won?

Northstar prevailed in the case because the court found that the skier's injuries did not arise from the resort's promotional activities in Nevada, thus lacking the necessary connection for personal jurisdiction.

Northstar's promotional activities do not confer jurisdiction upon the district court even though petitioner's trip to Northstar was in response to such promotional activities.

You must be