This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 75 Ore. App. 627, *; 707 P.2d 1250, **; 1985 Ore. App. LEXIS 3928, *** GREGORY A. RICE, Appellant, v. ORIENTAL FIREWORKS COMPANY; HORSE BRAND FIREWORKS CO.; TEMPLE OF HEAVEN BRAND FIREWORKS CO., Defendants, J. C. CHOU and J.C. ORIENTAL FIREWORKS, INC., a Maryland corporation, Respondents, ROY NE & COMPANY FIREWORKS, Defendant CA No. A32672 COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON 75 Ore. App. 627; 707 P.2d 1250; 1985 Ore. App. LEXIS 3928 March 15, 1985, Argued and submitted October 9, 1985, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Argued and submitted March 15, 1985; Reconsideration Denied November 22, 1985; petition for review denied February 19, 1986 Reconsideration Denied November 22, 1985. Petition for Review Denied February 19, 1986 (300 Or 546). PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Clifford B. Olsen, Judge. No. 8206-03933. DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded. COUNSEL: Larry N. Sokol, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Jolles, Sokol & Bernstein, P.C., Portland. Peter R. Chamberlain, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Bodyfelt Mount Stroup & Chamberlain, Portland. JUDGES: Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges. OPINIONBY: WARREN OPINION: [*629] [**1253] Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his claim against J. C. Chou (Chou) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed this claim against, inter alia , n1 J.C. Oriental Fireworks, Inc., (Oriental) a Maryland corporation, and Chou, a Maryland resident, for personal injuries he suffered while discharging fireworks distributed by Oriental or Chou. n2 In a pretrial order, ultimately reduced to the judgment appealed from, the trial court granted Chou's [***2] motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Oriental then dismissed local counsel and allowed an uncontested judgment to be taken 1 against it in the amount of approximately $ 432,000. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n1 Defendants Oriental Fireworks Company, Horse Brand Fireworks Co., Temple of Heaven Brand Fireworks Co. and Roy Ne & Company Fireworks were never served and therefore are not involved in this case. n2 Defendant argues that plaintiff did not allege that Chou was personally liable for plaintiff's injuries. The complaint is broad enough to admit proof that Chou, in his personal capacity, did all the acts alleged....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/04/2008 for the course BIO G 101 taught by Professor Gilbert,c. during the Spring '07 term at Cornell.
- Spring '07