COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.

v.

ATKINSON ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1977)
  …zka, 116 N. H. 281, 358 A. 2d 397 (1976); Bekins v. Huish, 1 Ariz. App. 258, 401 P. 2d 743 (1965); Atkinson v. Superior Court, 49 Cal. 2d 338, 316 P. 2d 960 (1957), appeal dismissed and cert, denied sub nom. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Atkinson, 357 U. S. 569 (1958). The overwhelming majority of commentators have also rejected Pennoyer’s premise that a proceeding “against” property is not a proceeding against the owners of that property. Accordingly, they urge that the “traditional notions of fair play…
• Texas v. NEW Jersey, 379 U.S. 674 (U.S. 1965)
  …ry item of property involved here. Cf. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306; Atkinson v. Superior Court, 49 Cal. 2d 338, 316 P. 2d 960, appeals dismissed and cert, denied sub nom. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Atkinson, 357 U. S. 569. But the rule that Texas proposes, we believe, would serve only to leave in permanent turmoil a question which should be settled once and for all by a clear rule which will govern all types of intangible obligations like these and to which all State…
• Jonnet v. Dollar Sav. Bank of the City of N.Y., 530 F.2d 1123 (3d Cir. 1976)
  …m case, for a minimum contacts analysis. The better reasoned authorities which have considered the matter have made such an analysis. In Atkinson v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.2d 338, 316 P. 2d 960 (1957), appeals dismissed and cert. denied per curiam, 357 U.S. 569, 78 S.Ct. 1381, 2 L.Ed.2d 1541 (1958), for example, Judge Traynor stated that since a person might be forced personally to appear (the very purpose of the procedure) when a state asserted quasi-in-rem jurisdiction, a minimum contacts analysis should…