Judas Priest v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev.

Citation104 Nev. 424,760 P.2d 137
Decision Date25 August 1988
Docket NumberNo. 18967,18967
Parties, 15 Media L. Rep. 2010 JUDAS PRIEST, Glenn Tipton, Robert Halford, Ian Hill, Kenneth K. Downing, Betaglen Limited, Betaglow Limited, Betagrange Limited, Betagreen Limited, Petitioners, v. SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF the STATE of NEVADA; and the Honorable Jerry Carr Whitehead, District Judge, Respondents, James Vance, Emitt J.R. Vance, Phyllis Vance, Aunetta Roberson, Natural Parent of Raymond Eugene Belknap, an individual; and Aunetta Roberson, the Special Administrator of the Estate of Raymond Eugene Belknap, Real Parties in Interest.
CourtSupreme Court of Nevada

Judge, Respondents,

James Vance, Emitt J.R. Vance, Phyllis Vance, Aunetta

Roberson, Natural Parent of Raymond Eugene Belknap, an

individual; and Aunetta Roberson, the Special Administrator

of the Estate of Raymond Eugene Belknap, Real Parties in Interest.

No. 18967.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Aug. 25, 1988.

Woodburn, Wedge & Jeppson, and Suellen Fulstone and Shawn B. Meador, Reno, for petitioners.

Kenneth J. McKenna, Timothy Paul Post, Erickson, Thorpe, Swainston, Cobb & Lundemo, and James L. Lundemo, Hamilton & Lynch, Vivian E. Lynch, Reno, for respondents.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In the early evening hours of December 23, 1985, Raymond Belknap and James Vance took a sawed-off shotgun to an empty churchyard. They made their way to the children's play area and sat down. Raymond Belknap anchored the gun beneath his chin, pulled the trigger, and thus ended his short life. James Vance also shot himself, but survived with critical injuries.

Lawsuits were soon filed against the petitioners and others by Vance and by Belknap's mother, claiming that the Judas Priest album "Stained Class" had directly caused their suicidal actions. Petitioners herein, the individual members of Judas Priest and their corporations 1, have requested that we prohibit the district court from asserting in personam jurisdiction over them. For the reasons expressed in this opinion, we deny the writ.

A writ of prohibition is the appropriate remedy to challenge the district court's refusal to quash service of process. Shapiro v. Pavlikowski, 98 Nev. 548, 654 P.2d 1030 (1982); NRS 34.320. Under the circumstances of this case, however, we do not believe the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in refusing to quash service of process on the petitioners. A court may assert jurisdiction if there is a statutory basis for that assertion which does not contravene the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 1478, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984). Respondents have claimed, and petitioners have denied, that jurisdiction may be asserted under two Nevada statutes, NRS 14.065(2)(a) and NRS 14.080. NRS 14.065(2)(a) provides that any person who transacts business within Nevada submits himself to the jurisdiction of Nevada courts, even if he acts through an agent; NRS 14.080 allows for service of process on any corporation which directly or indirectly supplies a product for distribution, sale or use when an injury results from such activity in the state. In our opinion, either statute allows the assertion of jurisdiction in this case.

We have held that the Nevada long-arm statutes reach the limits of due process set by the Constitution. Certain-Teed Prods. v. Dist. Ct., 87 Nev. 18, 479 P.2d 781 (1971). Due process requires "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum state; additionally, the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. See Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); Internat. Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). Because we conclude that Judas Priest has established "minimum contacts" with Nevada, and that it is reasonable to assert jurisdiction in this case, we decline to grant the writ of prohibition requested by the petitioners.

Judas Priest created and recorded the master album of "Stained Class," and entered into a licensing agreement with CBS Records, Inc. for the express purpose of distributing and selling copies of the album throughout the United States. The creator of a product is subject to personal jurisdiction where his product is sold if he is aware of and uses a national distribution system to make the sale. Myers v. Johns Manville Sales Corp., 600 F.Supp. 977 (D.Nev.1984). Jurisdiction is not destroyed simply because the product passes through a middleman. Le Manufacture Francaise v. District Court, 620 P.2d 1040 (Colo.1980). The test is whether the defendant has targeted the forum state for marketing his product, thereby purposefully availing himself of the benefits of the forum. Taubler v. Giraud, 655 F.2d 991 (9th Cir.1981); Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). In addition to the licensing agreement, which requires the payment of royalties to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Trump v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev. In and For County of Clark, 23912
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • July 27, 1993
    ......TRUMP President" underneath it. The second signature line contains Trump's signature and simply states, "DONALD J. ...310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)). See Judas Priest v. District Court, 104 Nev. 424, 426, 760 P.2d 137, 138 (1988); ......
  • Huffy Corp. v. Overload Industries, CV-S-02-1308PMP(RJJ)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • February 24, 2003
    ......United States District Court, D. Nevada. February 24, 2003. Page 1095. ... over defendants to the same extent as the state courts "in the state in which the [federal] ... or the Constitution of the United States." Nev.Rev.Stat. 14.065(1).         The courts ...v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 82 Nev. 263, 415 P.2d 617, 619 ...See id. at 619. See also Judas Priest v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 104 Nev. ......
  • Dobson v. Dobson, 21718
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • May 13, 1992
    .... Page 1336. 830 P.2d 1336. 108 Nev. 346. Theodore DOBSON, Appellant,. v. Cecile ON, Respondent. No. 21718. Supreme Court of Nevada. May 13, 1992.         Smith & ... proposition that this court may, by judicial fiat, transmute a specific order quashing service ...492, 761 P.2d 414 (1988); Judas Priest v. District Court, 104 Nev. 424, 760 P.2d ......
  • Abraham v. Agusta, S.P.A.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • June 9, 1997
    ....... United States District Court, D. Nevada. . June 9, 1997. . Page 1404 . ... Fox's principal place of business is in the State of Texas. A review of the chain-of-title also ...Judicial Dist. Court, 82 Nev. 263, 415 P.2d 617 (1966), ... See Judas Priest v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 104 Nev. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT