Alien Registration- Lavine, George A. (Auburn, Androscoggin County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/31151/thumbnail.jp

Long-Arm Jurisdiction in California Under New Section 410.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Subject only to the limitations prescribed by the Federal Constitution, a state legislature has the power to determine the extent to which courts of the state may exercise personal jurisdiction over absent defendants. The common law recognized only two bases of jurisdiction -presence within the state and actual consent. The additional bases approved in this century by the Supreme Court may be utilized by state courts only to the extent that state statutes permit. Hence, the states have enacted various types of long-arm statutes, all of which are designed to extend the in personam jurisdiction of state courts proportionately with the post-Pennoyer liberalization of federal due process requirements. The early long-arm statutes were necessarily of a very limited and specific character. Nonresident motorist statutes, for instance, empowered the courts to take jurisdiction over nonresident defendants sued on causes of action arising out of their operation of motor vehicles within the forum state. Other statutes conferred jurisdiction over absent residents or over absent nonresident individuals and foreign corporations sued on causes of action arising out of business they had done within the forum state. After International Shoe opened the door to a considerable expansion of the constitutional boundaries of state courts\u27 long-arm jurisdiction, the state legislatures began enacting long-arm statutes considerably more comprehensive in scope. The California legislature has enacted a long-arm statute that in terms makes the long-arm jurisdiction of California courts coextensive with constitutional boundary lines. New section 410.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which becomes effective July 1, 1970, succinctly states: A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States. Thus California, after nearly 100 years of living with a patchwork quilt of jurisdictional provisions, some archaic and others self-limiting, has adopted the most comprehensive long-arm statute of any state. The advantages of couching the statute in such sweeping language are obvious. By stating the governing rule solely in terms of constitutional power, without enumerating specific circumstances under which its courts may take jurisdiction, California has avoided many problems of statutory construction that have plagued courts in other states

Long-Arm Jurisdiction in California Under New Section 410.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Subject only to the limitations prescribed by the Federal Constitution, a state legislature has the power to determine the extent to which courts of the state may exercise personal jurisdiction over absent defendants. The common law recognized only two bases of jurisdiction -presence within the state and actual consent. The additional bases approved in this century by the Supreme Court may be utilized by state courts only to the extent that state statutes permit. Hence, the states have enacted various types of long-arm statutes, all of which are designed to extend the in personam jurisdiction of state courts proportionately with the post-Pennoyer liberalization of federal due process requirements. The early long-arm statutes were necessarily of a very limited and specific character. Nonresident motorist statutes, for instance, empowered the courts to take jurisdiction over nonresident defendants sued on causes of action arising out of their operation of motor vehicles within the forum state. Other statutes conferred jurisdiction over absent residents or over absent nonresident individuals and foreign corporations sued on causes of action arising out of business they had done within the forum state. After International Shoe opened the door to a considerable expansion of the constitutional boundaries of state courts\u27 long-arm jurisdiction, the state legislatures began enacting long-arm statutes considerably more comprehensive in scope. The California legislature has enacted a long-arm statute that in terms makes the long-arm jurisdiction of California courts coextensive with constitutional boundary lines. New section 410.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which becomes effective July 1, 1970, succinctly states: A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States. Thus California, after nearly 100 years of living with a patchwork quilt of jurisdictional provisions, some archaic and others self-limiting, has adopted the most comprehensive long-arm statute of any state. The advantages of couching the statute in such sweeping language are obvious. By stating the governing rule solely in terms of constitutional power, without enumerating specific circumstances under which its courts may take jurisdiction, California has avoided many problems of statutory construction that have plagued courts in other states

Comparison of the effect of pressure loading on left ventricular size, systolic and diastolic function in canines with left ventricular dysfunction with preserved and reduced ejection fraction

Abstract Background Decompensated heart failure may present with severe hypertension in patients with preserved (PreEF) or reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (RedEF) and is clinically indistinguishable. Previously, we demonstrated that arterial pressure elevation increases LV filling pressures in a canine model of chronic LV dysfunction with PreEF or RedEF. It is not clear whether any differences in hemodynamics, LV volume or performance, or diastolic function can be demonstrated between canines with PreEF or RedEF in response to arterial pressure elevation. We hypothesized that the LV systolic, diastolic, and hemodynamic response to pressure loading would be similar in RedEF or PreEF. Methods We studied 25 dogs with chronic LV dysfunction due to coronary microsphere embolization with RedEF (35 ± 4%) and 20 dogs with PreEF (50 ± 3%). Arterial pressure was increased with methoxamine infusion and hemodynamics and echo-Doppler parameters of LV size, function, transaortic and transmitral pulsed Doppler prior to and with methoxamine infusion was obtained. Results Though LV filling pressures were similar at baseline, LV size was larger (p \u3c 0.01) and ejection fraction lower in dogs with RedEF (p \u3c 0.001). With methoxamine, there were similar increases in LV size, LV pressures, and index of myocardial performance with the ejection fraction reduced similarly. Diastolic parameters demonstrated similar tau increases, E/A reduction, and diastolic filling shortening in RedEF and PreEF dogs. A similar extent of isovolumic contraction and relaxation times and index of myocardial performance prolongation occurred with pressure loading. Conclusion Pressure loading in a canine model of LV dysfunction with PreEF and RedEF resulted in similar degrees of LV dilatation, increased filling pressures, and increased index of myocardial performance