Boiler from China Manufacturers Hangzhou Zhenxing Boiler


Boiler from China Manufacturers Hangzhou Zhenxing Boiler

Boiler from China Manufacturers Hangzhou Zhenxing Boiler
  • Offshore price : $8,999.00 - $100,000.00
  • Minimum order quantity : 1 set
  • Supply Capacity : 10 units/month
  • Manufacturer/Brand : TOBO BOILER
  • Port : Anyang
  • payment terms : Letter of Credit, Wire Transfer, VISA

Leave us a message

We will send out plans and quotations within five minutes

Name (optional)

Email

Whatsapp

Choose product type

Message

  • 88 Wn.2d 50, CROSE v. VOLKSWAGENWERK

    This is not an unforseeable or fortuitous event. Rather, it is the result of a well-organized, fully-integrated worldwide chain of distribution. BUCKEYE BOILER CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT, 71 Cal. 2d 893, 458 P.2d 57, 80 Cal. Rptr. 113 (1969); HUGHES v.Get Price

  • Export McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC

    Feb 18, 2010 · (See, e.g., Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 906 [80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57].) Instead, here plaintiff seeks to hold Foster Wheeler legally responsible for exposing him to asbestos in Oklahoma, and it is Oklahoma that bears the primary responsibility for regulating the conduct of those who create a risk of injury Get Price

  • 448 F2d 640 Burton Shipyard Inc v. W Williams | OpenJurist

    The annual steel purchases amounted to approximately $50,000.00. On the entire record, petitioner's contacts were sufficient to meet the requirements of International Shoe, Duple and the California case of Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.2d 893, 80 Cal. Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57 (1969). The fact that the TRIPLE CROWN might be a Get Price

  • Sibley v. Superior Court - 16 Cal.3d 442 - Mon, 03/08/1976

    (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 905, fn. 9 [80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57].) In denying petitioner's motion to quash, the trial court relied upon the following facts to justify retaining the case in California, rather than to compel the litigants to travel across the continent to the eastern seaboard for an Get Price

  • Mihlon v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.3d 703 | Casetext

    ( Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 902 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57].) (9c) Thus, in the Davis products liability case, it appears that the finding of the individual defendants' personal royalty interests in the product and their promotion of sales within California was necessary to the exercise of personal Get Price

  • Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court

    Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.2d 893 (1969); Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill.2d 432 (1961), should not be applied to the welder who has no control over and derives no direct benefit from his employer's sales in that distant State.Get Price

  • Connelly v. Uniroyal, Inc., 389 N.E.2d 155, 75 Ill. 2d 393

    Mar 30, 1979 · We find persuasive the opinion of the Supreme Court of California in Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969), 71 Cal. 2d 893, 458 P.2d 57, 80 Cal. Rptr. 113. In Buckeye the court held that engaging in economic activity within the State "as a matter of commercial actuality" (71 Cal. 2d 893, 902, 458 P.2d 57, 64, 80 Cal. Rptr. 113, 120) met Get Price

  • STAR AVIATION INC v. NELSON |

    (See Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.2d at p. 893, 80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57.) In Buckeye Boiler Co., supra, the California Supreme Court held that this state had jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation where the defendant sold machinery to a company in South San Francisco and it was reasonably foreseeable that this Get Price

  • Judicial Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Interstate

    4. See, e.g., Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 2d 893, 458 P.2d 57, 80 Cal. Rptr. 113 (1969). There are few modem cases involving choice of law in products liability because once the forum has asserted jurisdiction under its long-arm statute the application of …Get Price

  • RATCLIFFE v. PEDERSEN | 51 Cal.App.3d 89 | Cal. Ct. App

    When these factors are viewed in light of California's interest in having the lawsuit tried here, it is not unreasonable to require respondent to defend in a California tribunal. ( Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 71 Cal.2d 893, 899-900; Fisher Governor Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.2d 222, 225-226 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 1, 347 P.2d 1].)Get Price

  • BUCKEYE BOILER CO. v. SUP | 71 Cal.2d 893 (1969

    Aug 28, 1969 · PETERS, J. Petitioner The Buckeye Boiler Company seeks a writ of mandate to compel the respondent superior court to quash the service of summons upon it in an action for personal injuries brought by real party in interest Wayman P. Flynt. Involved is the scope of jurisdiction of California courts over foreign corporations claimed to be "doing business in this …Get Price

  • A Reappraisal of General and Limited Jurisdiction in

    also Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978). This link could have been easily forged in the familiar case of the out-of-state manufacturer whose products are sold in the state, e.g., Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 2d 893, 458 P.2d 57, 80 Cal. Rptr. 113 (1969). But the California courts of appeal have not done thisGet Price

  • BEFORE THE LABOR COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF …

    See International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1946) 326 U.S. 310. If a nonresident defendant's activities may be described as "extensive or wide- ranging"(Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898-900) orGet Price

  • RATCLIFFE v. PEDERSEN | Cited Cases

    53 Cal.2d 222 - FISHER GOVERNOR CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT, Supreme Court of California. In Bank. 52 Cal.2d 822 - OWENS v. SUPERIOR COURT, Supreme Court of California. In Bank. 71 Cal.2d 893 - BUCKEYE BOILER CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT, Supreme Court of California. In Bank. From Cal.App.3d, Reporter Series. 23 Cal.App.3d 1 - MICHIGAN NAT. BANK v.Get Price

  • Jurisdiction Over The Corporate Agent: The Fiduciary Shield

    arm statutes, see Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 2d 893, 458 P.2d 57, 80 Cal. 350 WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW forth in International Shoe have afforded plaintiffs a greater choice of forums by increasing defendants' amenability to suit in states other thanGet Price

  • I LOUIS R. MILLER (State Bar No. 54141)

    Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court ofLos Angeles County 7 71 Cal. 2d 893 (1969) 18 Kitteredge 8 213Cal.App 18 Kitteredge Sports Co. v. Super. Ci. 9 213CaI.App.3d1045(1989) 18,21 Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. 10 39Cal.3d290(1985) 18 Morgan v. Superior Ct. 11 l72Cal.App.2d527(1959) 18 Solit v. Tokczi Bank Ltd. N.Y Branch 12 68Cal.App.4th1435 Get Price

  • 496 F2d 1101 Threlkeld v. V Tucker | OpenJurist

    When the 'minimum contacts' doctrine is the sole basis for jurisdiction, the claim sued upon must arise out of or be connected with the defendant's forum-related activities. Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 71 Cal.2d 893, …Get Price

  • Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court - 71 Cal.2d 893 - Thu

    Petitioner The Buckeye Boiler Company seeks a writ of mandate to compel the respondent superior [71 Cal.2d 896] court to quash the service of summons upon it in an action for personal injuries brought by real party in interest Wayman P. Flynt.Get Price

  • BitClave PTE. LTD v. Vasily Trofimchuk | Legal News

    General jurisdiction may lie for all purposes if a defendant has established a presence in the forum state by virtue of activities in the state which are "extensive or wide-ranging" (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898-899) or "substantial … continuous and systematic." (Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d at 148.)Get Price

  • SIBLEY v. CARLSBERG MOBILE HOME PROPERTIES LTD 72 | …

    (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 905, fn. 9, 80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57.) In denying petitioner's motion to quash, the trial court relied upon the following facts to justify retaining the case in California, rather than to compel the litigants to travel across the continent to the eastern seaboard for an Get Price

  • CALDER V. JONES, 465 U. S. 783 (1984)

    Cases which hold that jurisdiction will be proper over the manufacturer, Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.2d 893, 458 P.2d 57 (1969); Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (1961), should not be applied to the welder who has no control over and derives no direct benefit from his employer's Get Price

  • Overview of Personal Jurisdiction -- U.S. Perspective

    See Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.2d 893, 458 P.2d 57 (1969). In one sense, this is not "true" general jurisdiction, but a limited variety of it which is justified by the similarity between the actual claim and the specific jurisdiction which could be asserted.Get Price

  • Calder v. Jones - Justia US Supreme Court Center

    Cases which hold that jurisdiction will be proper over the manufacturer, Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 2d 893, 458 P.2d 57 (1969); Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill. 2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (1961), should not be applied to the welder who has no control over and derives no direct benefit from his Get Price

  • The Reach Toward England--Hawaii's Long-Arm Jurisdiction

    In Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 2d 893, 458 P.2d 57, 80 Cal. Rptr. 113 (1969), the California court placed the burden on the defendant to show that it was unforeseeable that his product would enter the state. 24. See Gorfinkel & Lavine, supra note 23, at 1196. 25.Get Price

  • Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court - 39 Cal

    Buckeye Boiler, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 899; see also Secrest, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 669.) [4] Thus, in determining whether the defendant's contacts with the forum are sufficient to warrant jurisdiction, the courts must focus on "the relationship …Get Price

  • Seagate Technology v. A. Kogyo Co., 219 Cal.App.3d 696

    ( Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898-899 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57].) (3c) Here, the relevant acts fall into two categories: the acts of NET and/or Tanaka as vice-president of NET, and the acts of Nakata himself. There is ample evidence in the record, which the trial court impliedly accepted as true, that it Get Price

  • Sibley v. Superior Court :: :: Supreme Court of California

    (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal. 2d 893, 905, fn. 9 [80 Cal. Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57].) In denying petitioner's motion to quash, the trial court relied upon the following facts to justify retaining the case in California, rather than to compel the litigants to travel across the continent to the eastern seaboard for an Get Price

  • 196 Cal. App. 4th 357 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 257 2011 Cal. App

    [HN5] (6) The California Supreme Court has equat­ ed "purposeful availment" with engaging [**262] in economic activity in California "'as a matter of commer­ cial actuality'"--i.e., as a matter of "economic reality." (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 901-902, 903 [80 Cal. Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57] (Buckeye Boiler).) [HN6]Get Price

  • MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL | Court

    Dec 30, 2019 · (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 902.) However, these actions are not related to Plaintiff's claim, as Plaintiff's claim arise from Moving Defendants' wrongful use of his intellectual property per …Get Price

  • BUCKEYE BOILER CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT | 71 Cal.2d 893 | Cal

    BUCKEYE BOILER CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT. 71 Cal.2d 893 458 P.2d 57 80 Cal.Rptr. 113. Important Paras. [3] A defendant not literally "present" in the forum state may not be required to defend itself in that state's tribunals unless the "quality and nature of the defendant's activity" in relation to the particular cause of action makes it fair to do Get Price

  • Limited Jurisdiction in California: The Long-Arm of the

    The California Supreme Court's resolution appeared in Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court." There, the court equated engaging in economic activity as a matter of commer-cial actuality with Hanson's "purposeful availment" require-ment 4 to support …Get Price