"A state court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresidential defendant …show more content…
V. Washington, supra, 326 U.S., at 319, 66 S.Ct., at 159, the petitioners or defendants have no contact or relations with the state of Oklahoma. Therefore the judgement of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma was reversed. There was a failure to find "minimum contacts" that would have been a requirement to withhold jurisdiction over the defendants.
ANALYSIS
Following the rule stated above the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the judgement passed against the defendants due to the fact that there was no probable evidence that the defendants have conducted any activity in the state of Oklahoma to be held accountable. The petitioners had absence of "minimal contacts" in the state. The is no record stating or showing any business related activity or ties were incorporate in this state and that a foreseeable cause was irrelevant to the case. The court recognized these facts as well as the fact that foreseeability is not sufficient enough to personal jurisdiction under the Due Process