Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Riverland Hardwood Co., Inc. v. Craftsman Hard. Lbr. Co., 251 So. 2d 45.

18 citing documents.

Louisiana Plastic Converting Corp. v. Plexchem International, Inc. 655 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
(1971), the Louisiana plaintiff sold lumber to an out of state company which failed to make payment.
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Ballard 517 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
(1971), for the proposition that "buying is not traditionally the same as doing business" and that a significant feature dissuasive of personal jurisdiction is the "ultimate consumer" status of the nonresident.
Superior Supply Co. v. Associated Pipe & Supply 499 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Courtesy Ford, Inc. v. Weatherly 485 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
On the other hand, in cases such as Riverland Hardwood Co., , (1971) our courts have treated occasional mail order purchases differently, finding that the purchasers had not submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of Louisiana courts.
Cobb Industries, Inc. v. Hight 469 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Jackson v. Bishop College 359 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
NOTES [1] , (1971); Drilling Engineering, Inc. v. Independent Indonesian American Petroleum Co., La., (1973).
Adcock v. Surety Research & Inv. Corp. 344 So. 2d 969 La. 1977
747 , (1972), , (1971), are not applicable.
Coleman v. Gear 344 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Specialized Electronics, Division of Oakmont Corp. v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission of India 340 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
March Chemical Co. v. White Cross Laboratories, Inc. 339 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
18:3201(a) which reads as follows: “A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the nonresident’s (a) transacting any business in this state; It is White’s , (1971).
Dibert, Bancroft & Ross Co. v. Aetna-Standard Engineering Co. 336 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
(1971), held that a single business transaction within the state was not sufficient to hold an out of state purchaser subject to personal jurisdiction in Louisiana even though the value of the purchase was substantial and the purchaser hoped to profit from the transaction.
Kalvar Corporation v. General Micrographics 318 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Dodson v. Fontenot 285 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
(1971) is distinguished.
Drilling Eng., Inc. v. Independent Indon. Amer. Pet. Co. 283 So. 2d 687 La. 1973
Salter v. Natchitoches Chiropractic Clinic 274 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
(1971) where a Louisiana resident sold lumber to a nonresident and then sued in Louisiana to recover the price.
Drilling Engineering, Inc. v. Independent Indonesian American Petroleum Co. 271 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
te, which grants jurisdiction as a result of defendant’s “contracting to supply services or things in this state.” A majority of our Supreme Court has consistently recognized that for jurisdictional purposes there is a distinction between a business transaction in which the nonresident is the seller and one in which he is the buyer, , (1971); Fisher v. Albany Machine & Supply Company, 261 La.
Fisher v. Albany MacHine and Supply Company 260 So. 2d 691 La. 1972
Albany claims that the restricted view of “minimal contacts” , , should be adopted here.
Moore v. Central Louisiana Electric Co. 257 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Co., La.App., , affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court at , .