Effective 28 Aug 1993

506.500. Actions in which outstate service is authorized — jurisdiction of Missouri courts applicable, when. — 1. Any person or firm, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, or any corporation, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this section, thereby submits such person, firm, or corporation, and, if an individual, his personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts:

(1) The transaction of any business within this state;

(2) The making of any contract within this state;

(3) The commission of a tortious act within this state;

(4) The ownership, use, or possession of any real estate situated in this state;

(5) The contracting to insure any person, property or risk located within this state at the time of contracting;

(6) Engaging in an act of sexual intercourse within this state with the mother of a child on or near the probable period of conception of that child.

2. Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who has lived in lawful marriage within this state, submits himself to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to all civil actions for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation and all obligations arising for maintenance of a spouse, support of any child of the marriage, attorney's fees, suit money, or disposition of marital property, if the other party to the lawful marriage lives in this state or if a third party has provided support to the spouse or to the children of the marriage and is a resident of this state.

3. Only causes of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against a defendant in an action in which jurisdiction over him is based upon this section.

­­--------

(L. 1967 p. 660 § 1, A.L. 1984 H.B. 1275, A.L. 1993 S.B. 253)

(1969) This section is procedural and remedial and applies retrospectively to causes of action which accrued before its passage. State ex rel. Nichols v. Fuller (A.), 449 S.W.2d 11.

(1970) The Missouri "Long-Arm Statute" is constitutional. State ex rel. Deere & Co. v. Pinnell (Mo.), 454 S.W.2d 889; State ex rel. Birdsboro Corp. v. Kimberlin (Mo.), 461 S.W.2d 292; Fulton v. Southern Pacific Co. (W.D.Mo.), 320 F.Supp. 45.

(1970) This section does not deny due process. State ex rel. Deere and Co. v. Pinnell (Mo.), 454 S.W.2d 889.

(1973) The phrase "commission of a tortious act within this state" includes extraterritorial acts producing actionable consequence in Missouri, also it is not necessary that cause of action pleaded sound in tort in order to confer jurisdiction under this section. Fulton v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Co. (C.A. Mo.), 481 F.2d 326.

(1973) A foreign corporation which manufactures a product for use in Missouri is subject to extraterritorial jurisdiction on the ground that a tortious act is committed within this state when the dealer seeks indemnification from the manufacturer by way of impleader, and mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel the impleader of such manufacturer. State ex rel. Apco Oil Corp. v. Turpin (A.), 490 S.W.2d 400.

(1976) Held that evidence sustained finding of sufficient contact to give forum state jurisdiction. State ex rel. Peoples Bank, etc. v. Stussie (A.), 536 S.W.2d 934.

(1976) Retention of unpaid draft for an unreasonable time by a Nebraska Bank which resulted in damages to Missouri bank was not sufficient to justify in personam jurisdiction by Missouri court. State ex rel. Bank of Gering v. Schoenlaub (Mo.), 540 S.W.2d 31.

(1976) Service of process by sheriff of another state does not come under verity rule and may be collaterally attacked. Germanese v. Champlin (A.), 540 S.W.2d 109.

(1984) In a declaratory judgment action relating to defendant's patent, the existence of a business relationship between the nonresident defendant corporation and a Missouri distributor of the product in question was held sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the defendant corporation under subdivision (1) of subsection 1. Aluminum Housewares Co., Inc. v. Chip Clip Corp. (E.D. Mo.) 609 F.Supp. 358.

(1984) Telephone conversations and written correspondence were insufficient contacts under the due process clause to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant on a contract claim, and were therefore also insufficient to satisfy the Missouri "long arm" statute. Inst. Food Marketing v. Golden State Strawberries (8th Cir.), 747 F.2d 448.

(1985) Assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant did not violate the due process clause where the defendant "transacted business within the state" by selling and shipping conveyor belts to a Missouri buyer for installation in Illinois. Precision Const. Co. v. J.A. Slattery Co., Inc. (8th Cir.), 765 F.2d 114.

(1986) Where Colorado savings and loan association solicited participation of Missouri savings and loan association in construction loans, negotiated agreement in Missouri, and where contract became binding through acceptance in Missouri, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Colorado savings and loan did not violate due process. St. Louis Fed. Sav. and Loan v. Silverado Banking. 626 F.Supp. 379 (E.D. Mo.).

(1986) A foreign corporation which does no more than manufacture a product which eventually is used in this state does not have sufficient contact with the state for a circuit court to exercise jurisdiction over such corporation. State v. Adolf, 718 S.W.2d 550 (Mo.App.).

(1987) Communication through the mails and by telephone to seller before contract was made and visit to seller in this state to perfect product design after contract was made by buyer are contacts sufficient to constitute the transaction of business in this state, thus subjecting nonresident buyer to jurisdiction of court of this state pursuant to this section without violating due process principles. Watlow Elec. Mfg. v. Sam Dick Industries, 734 S.W.2d 295 (Mo.App.).

(1991) Where parties executed stock purchase agreement, promissory note to effectuate the agreement, and guaranty agreement on the indebtedness in Missouri and negotiations leading up to contract were conducted in Missouri, there was sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy federal due process and was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under Missouri Long-Arm Act, regardless of whether defendant also engaged in the transaction of business within the state. Portnoy v. Defiance, Inc., 951 F.2d 169 (8th Cir.).

(2000) Nonresident trademark infringement defendant's website, which had not been accessed by any Missouri resident, did not give rise to sufficient contacts with state to allow court to exercise personal jurisdiction. Uncle Sam's Outfitters, Inc. v. Uncle Sam's Army Navy Outfitters-Manhattan, Inc., 96 F.Supp.2d 919 (E.D.Mo.).

(2000) Foreign microbrewery, which advertised and sold beer club memberships to state residents using the internet and telephones and delivered beer to residents, was subject to personal jurisdiction; state interest in regulation of the sale and delivery of alcoholic beverages outweighed burden on defendant. State ex rel. Nixon v. Beer Nuts, Ltd., 29 S.W.3d 828 (Mo.App.E.D.).

(2002) Maintenance of an internet website allowing visitors to site to make hotel room reservations is not sufficient contact with Missouri to subject defendant to personal jurisdiction for alleged tort that occurred in another state. Bell v. Imperial Palace Hotel/Casino, 200 F.Supp.2d 1082 (E.D.Mo.).