And, the Supreme Court has recently provided g uidance for i nterpreting the "reason ableness" s tandard. The basic legal standard imposed by the Due Process Clause is whether it is "reasonable" or basically "fair" to subject the defendant to suit in this forum under these circumstances. Plaintiff's contacts with New Hampshire consist of the facts that her name is listed as a corporate officer or staff member of a magazine ("Penthouse") and that she is an editor of others ("Viva" and "Omni") which have also circulated in New Hampshire. Their circulation in New Hampshire amounts to less than one percent of their total circulation in the United States. 2 The district court reasonably concluded that defendants' contacts with New Hampshire consist of sending magazines there to be circulated through independent distributors. The federal district court dismissed this suit on the ground that the federal constitution-in particular the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment-would not permit New Hampshire to exercise jurisdiction over defendants in this instance. North A merican News paper Alliance, Inc., 106 N.H. Of process on defendants seek to extend jurisdiction over nonresidents to the fullest extent permitted under the federal constitution. The relevant New Hampshire "long arm" statutes (see appendix) authorizing service There, her l ibel claim w as dismiss ed as barred by the Ohio s tatute of limitations and her invasion of privacy claim was dismissed as barred by the New York st atute of lim itations, w hich the Oh io court co nsidered to be "migratory." Plaintiff then brought this suit in New Hampshire, which, she says, is the only state remaining in which the statute of limitations has not run. Originally she brought suit in Ohio, where the magazines were published. 1 The plaintiff-appellant in this case is a resident of New York who claims that she was libeled by photographs and comments that appeared in "Hustler Magazine" and "The Best of Hustler." She sues several Ohio corporations and one California resident involved in the enterprises that published the "libelous" materials. Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, BOWNES and BREYER, Circuit Judges. and Brownfield, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz, Columbus, Ohio, were on brief, for appellees. William Brownfield, Columbus, Ohio, with whom Dort S. H., Norman Roy Grutman, and Grutman, Schafrann & Miller, New York City, were on brief, for app ellant.
#Hustler magazine covers 1975 1982 professional#
Michael Dunn, Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green, Professional Association, Manchester, N.
0 kommentar(er)
