Cascade Lumber Co. v. Edward Rose Building Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding “multiple phone conversations” between an Iowa company and a nonresident company were sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the nonresident company
• holding “multiple phone conversations” between an Iowa company and a nonresident company were sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the nonresident company
• finding months of telephone negotiations and the likelihood a breach of contract would occur in Iowa supported exercise of personal jurisdiction
• “We have recognized a stronger interest in seeing jurisdiction extended to nonresident sellers than to nonresident purchasers.”
• “Although Rose would characterize the negotiations as a simple placement of an order, Cascade’s affidavit shows four months of making arrangements, through multiple phone conversations, for the construction in Iowa of made-to-order trusses.”
• “[W]e are not bound, however, by the trial court’s application of legal principles.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).