VKGS v. Planet Bingo

VKGS v. PLANET BINGO 	599
Cite as 285 Neb. 599
the validity and implementation of ordinance 1142 may be a
moot point.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the district
court did not err in upholding the validity of both ordinance
1107 and ordinance 1142 adopted by La Vista for the annexa-
tion of SID 59. We therefore affirm the judgments of the dis-
trict court.
A ffirmed.
miller-lermAn, J., participating on briefs.
vKGS, llC, doinG buSineSS AS video K inG, A delAwAre
limited liAbility CompAny, AppellAnt, v. plAnet
binGo, llC, A CAliforniA limited liAbility
CompAny, And melAnGe C omputer ServiCeS,
inC., A miChiGAn CorporAtion, AppelleeS.
828 N.W.2d 168
Filed March 29, 2013. 	No. S-12-340.
1. Judgments: Jurisdiction. When a jurisdictional question does not involve a
factual dispute, the issue is a matter of law.
2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews questions of law
independently of the lower court’s conclusion.
3. Jurisdiction: Rules of the Supreme Court: Pleadings: Appeal and Error.
When reviewing an order dismissing a party from a case for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(2), an appellate court examines
the question of whether the nonmoving party has established a prima facie case
of personal jurisdiction de novo.
4. Judgments: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews a lower
court’s determination regarding personal jurisdiction based on written submis-
sions in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
5. Pleadings: Affidavits: Appeal and Error. If the lower court does not hold a
hearing and instead relies on the pleadings and affidavits, then an appellate court
must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
resolve all factual conflicts in favor of that party.
6. Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribu-
nal to subject and bind a particular entity to its decisions.
7. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. Before a court can exercise personal juris-
diction over a nonresident defendant, the court must determine, first, whether
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:40 AM CST

600 	285 NEBRASKA REPORTS
the long-arm statute is satisfied and, if the long-arm statute is satisfied, second,
whether minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state for
personal jurisdiction over the defendant without offending due process.
8. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: States. Nebraska’s long-arm statute, Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 25-536 (Reissue 2008), provides that a court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over a person who has any other contact with or maintains any other
relation to this state to afford a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction
consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
9. Jurisdiction: States: Legislature: Intent. It was the intention of the Legislature
to provide for the broadest allowable jurisdiction over nonresidents under
Nebraska’s long-arm statute.
10. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: States. Nebraska’s long-arm statute extends
Nebraska’s jurisdiction over nonresidents having any contact with or maintaining
any relation to this state as far as the U.S. Constitution permits.
11. 	Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. When a state construes its long-arm statute to
confer jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause, the
inquiry collapses into the single question of whether exercise of personal jurisdic-
tion comports with due process.
12. ____: ____: ____. To subject an out-of-state defendant to personal jurisdiction
in a forum court, due process requires that the defendant have minimum contacts
with the forum state so as not to offend traditional notions of fair play and sub-
stantial justice.
13. ____: ____: ____. The benchmark for determining whether the exercise of per-
sonal jurisdiction satisfies due process is whether the defendant’s minimum con-
tacts with the forum state are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate
being haled into court there.
14. Jurisdiction: States. Whether a forum state court has personal jurisdiction over
a nonresident defendant depends on whether the defendant’s actions created sub-
stantial connections with the forum state, resulting in the defendant’s purposeful
availment of the forum state’s benefits and protections.
15. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States: Appeal and Error. In analyzing personal
jurisdiction, an appellate court considers the quality and type of the defendant’s
activities in deciding whether the defendant has the necessary minimum contacts
with the forum state to satisfy due process.
16. Jurisdiction: States. In the exercise of general personal jurisdiction, the plain-
tiff’s claim does not have to arise directly out of the defendant’s contacts with
the forum state if the defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic general
business contacts with the forum state.
17. ____: ____. If a defendant’s contacts are neither substantial nor continuous and
systematic and instead the cause of action arises out of or is related to the defend-
ant’s contacts with the forum state, a court may assert specific jurisdiction over
the defendant, depending upon the nature and quality of such contact.
18. ____: ____. If the district court finds the necessary minimum contacts to support
the exercise of personal jurisdiction, the court must then weigh the facts of the
case to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport
with fair play and substantial justice.

VKGS v. PLANET BINGO 	601
Cite as 285 Neb. 599
19. ____: ____. In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would
comport with fair play and substantial justice, an appellate court may consider the
burden on the defendant, the interest of the forum state, the plaintiff’s interest in
obtaining relief, the judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient reso-
lution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several states in furthering
fundamental substantive social policies.
20. ____: ____. Where a defendant, who purposefully has directed its activities at
forum residents, seeks to defeat jurisdiction, that defendant must present a com-
pelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdic-
tion unreasonable.
21. ____: ____. A state generally has a manifest interest in providing its residents
with a convenient forum for redressing injuries inflicted by out-of-state actors.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: duAne
C. douGherty, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further
proceedings.
Paul J. Gardner and Kevin J. McCoy, of Smith, Gardner,
Slusky, Lazer, Pohren & Rogers, L.L.P., for appellant.
Patrick R. Guinan, of Erickson & Sederstrom, P.C., L.L.O.,
for appellees.
heAviCAn, C.J., wriGht, C onnolly, StephAn, mCC ormACK,
and CASSel, JJ.
heAviCAn, C.J.
INTRODUCTION
VKGS, LLC, doing business as Video King, filed suit
against Planet Bingo, LLC, and Melange Computer Services,
Inc. (Melange), in the Douglas County District Court. Planet
Bingo and Melange filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, which motion was granted. Video King
now appeals.
FACTS
Video King was founded in 1992 by Stuart Entertainment, a
gaming conglomerate, to develop, manufacture, and distribute
electronic bingo equipment. In 2005, Video King was con-
veyed to VKGS, LLC, in a spinoff transaction, but continued
to do business under the name “Video King.” Video King’s
principal place of business is located in Omaha, Nebraska.

602 	285 NEBRASKA REPORTS
Since 2000, Video King and Melange have had a business
relationship. Melange is a Michigan corporation formed in 1989
and has a principal place of business in Lansing, Michigan.
Melange was the developer of a software program known as
EPIC. On September 1, 2005, Video King and Melange entered
into an agreement regarding the use of EPIC on Video King’s
electronic bingo equipment. Subsequent amendments to this
agreement were entered into in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and
2012. Per this continuing agreement, Video King and Melange
conducted day-to-day business together, including communi-
cation via telephone, e-mail, reports, face-to-face meetings,
and conferences.
In 2006, Melange was acquired by Planet Bingo and became
a 	wholly 	owned 	subsidiary 	of 	Planet 	Bingo 	(hereinafter,
Melange and Planet Bingo will be collectively referred to as
“Planet Bingo”).
At a time not specified by the record, Video King began
developing its own software for electronic bingo equipment,
called OMNI. Concerned that Video King improperly used
Melange’s confidential information to design bingo software,
Planet Bingo filed suit against Video King in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Michigan in May 2011.
Planet Bingo alleged breach of contract, unfair competition,
and unjust enrichment.
On October 5, 2011, a hearing was held on a motion filed
by Planet Bingo for expedited discovery. At that hearing, the
magistrate judge questioned whether there was federal diver-
sity jurisdiction and ordered the parties to show cause why
the case should or should not be dismissed for lack of diver-
sity jurisdiction. On December 21, the case was dismissed on
those grounds.
However, on December 13, 2011, prior to dismissal in
federal court, Video King filed an action for declaratory judg-
ment against Planet Bingo in the Douglas County District
Court. That action sought a declaration of the rights, status,
and other legal obligations of the parties with respect to con-
fidentiality agreements between the parties. Additionally, on
December 20, Planet Bingo refiled its action in the Michigan
state court system. The complaint noted the dismissal of the

VKGS v. PLANET BINGO 	603
Cite as 285 Neb. 599
federal case as well as the pending Nebraska action filed by
Video King.
On January 13, 2012, in the district court for Douglas
County, Planet Bingo filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. That motion was granted, and the action
was dismissed. In dismissing the action, the district court noted
that both Planet Bingo and Melange were foreign corporations
with no agent for service of process in Nebraska, that neither
was registered to do business in Nebraska or required to pay
taxes in Nebraska, that neither maintained any bank or finan-
cial accounts or owned any real estate in Nebraska, and that
neither shipped any physical product or services to Nebraska.
The district court also found that the cause of action was based
upon the OMNI system, which the court found was unrelated
to the earlier contacts between Planet Bingo and Video King.
Video King appeals.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Video King assigns as error the district court’s finding that it
lacked personal jurisdiction over Planet Bingo.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1-3] When a jurisdictional question does not involve a
factual dispute, the issue is a matter of law. An appellate court
reviews questions of law independently of the lower court’s
conclusion.1 When reviewing an order dismissing a party from
a case for lack of personal jurisdiction under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg.
§ 6-1112(b)(2), an appellate court examines the question of
whether the nonmoving party has established a prima facie
case of personal jurisdiction de novo.2
[4,5] An appellate court reviews a lower court’s determina-
tion regarding personal jurisdiction based on written submis-
sions in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.3 If
the lower court does not hold a hearing and instead relies on
the pleadings and affidavits, then an appellate court must look
1 S.L. v. Steven L., 274 Neb. 646, 742 N.W.2d 734 (2007).
2 Id.
3 Id.

604 	285 NEBRASKA REPORTS
at the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party
and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of that party.4
ANALYSIS
Video King argues that the district court erred in finding that
the State of Nebraska lacked personal jurisdiction over Planet
Bingo. It argues that Planet Bingo had sufficient minimum con-
tacts with Nebraska to establish personal jurisdiction.
[6,7] Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to
subject and bind a particular entity to its decisions.5 Before a
Nebraska court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-
resident defendant, the court must determine, first, whether
our long-arm statute is satisfied and, if our long-arm statute
is satisfied, second, whether minimum contacts exist between
the defendant and Nebraska for personal jurisdiction over the
defendant without offending due process.6
Long-Arm Statute.
[8-11] Nebraska’s long-arm statute provides: “A court may
exercise personal jurisdiction over a person . . . [w]ho has any
other contact with or maintains any other relation to this state
to afford a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction con-
sistent with the Constitution of the United States.”7 It was the
intention of the Legislature to provide for the broadest allow-
able jurisdiction over nonresidents under Nebraska’s long-
arm statute.8 Nebraska’s long-arm statute, therefore, extends
Nebraska’s jurisdiction over nonresidents having any contact
with or maintaining any relation to this state as far as the U.S.
Constitution permits.9 “[W]hen a state construes its long-arm
4 Id.
5 Id.; In re Petition of SID No. 1, 270 Neb. 856, 708 N.W.2d 809 (2006);
Diversified Telecom Servs. v. Clevinger, 268 Neb. 388, 683 N.W.2d 338
(2004).
6 Brunkhardt v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 269 Neb. 222, 691
N.W.2d 147 (2005).
7 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-536 (Reissue 2008).
8 Quality Pork Internat. v. Rupari Food Servs., 267 Neb. 474, 675 N.W.2d
642 (2004).
9 Erickson v. U-Haul Internat., 274 Neb. 236, 738 N.W.2d 453 (2007).

VKGS v. PLANET BINGO 	605
Cite as 285 Neb. 599
statute to confer jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted
by the due process clause, . . . the inquiry collapses into the
single question of whether exercise of personal jurisdiction
comports with due process.”10 Therefore, the issue is whether
Planet Bingo had sufficient contacts with Nebraska so that the
exercise of personal jurisdiction would not offend federal prin-
ciples of due process.
Minimum Contacts.
[12-14] Therefore, we consider the kind and quality of Planet
Bingo’s activities to decide whether it has the necessary mini-
mum contacts with Nebraska to satisfy due process. To subject
an out-of-state defendant to personal jurisdiction in a forum
court, due process requires that the defendant have minimum
contacts with the forum state so as not to offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.11 The benchmark
for determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction
satisfies due process is whether the defendant’s minimum con-
tacts with the forum state are such that the defendant should
reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.12 Whether a
forum state court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant depends on whether the defendant’s actions created
substantial connections with the forum state, resulting in the
defendant’s purposeful availment of the forum state’s benefits
and protections.13
[15,16] 	In 	analyzing 	personal 	jurisdiction, 	we 	consider
the quality and type of the defendant’s activities in deciding
whether the defendant has the necessary minimum contacts
with the forum state to satisfy due process.14 A court exercises
two types of personal jurisdiction depending upon the facts
and circumstances of the case: general personal jurisdiction or
specific personal jurisdiction. In the exercise of general per-
sonal jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s claim does not have to arise
10 Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. U.S. Kids, Inc., 22 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir. 1994).
11 See S.L. v. Steven L., supra note 1.
12 Id.
13 See id.
14 Id.

606 	285 NEBRASKA REPORTS
directly out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state if
the defendant has engaged in “‘“‘continuous and systematic
general business contacts’”’” with the forum state.15
[17] But if the defendant’s contacts are neither substantial
nor continuous and systematic, as Video King essentially
concedes is the case here, and instead the cause of action
arises out of or is related to the defendant’s contacts with
the forum state, a court may assert specific jurisdiction over
the defendant, depending upon the nature and quality of
such contact.16
This court was faced with a similar set of facts in Crete
Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores.17 Crete Carrier Corporation
(Crete Carrier), a Nebraska corporation with its principal place
of business in Nebraska, entered into a transportation contract
with Red Food Stores, Inc. Red Food Stores did not own
property in Nebraska, did not have any business locations in
Nebraska, and had never paid taxes in Nebraska, and had never
authorized an agent to accept service of process in Nebraska.
The record further established that the contract between the
parties was not negotiated in Nebraska and that no representa-
tive was ever sent to Nebraska to negotiate or otherwise deal
with Crete Carrier.
This court noted that “[w]hen dealing with contracts, it is the
prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along
with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course
of dealing, that must be evaluated in determining whether a
defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within
the forum.”18 Thus, while the existence of a contract with a
party in the forum state alone would not support the necessary
contacts for a finding of specific personal jurisdiction, and
the mere use of interstate facilities, such as telephone, mail,
or fax machines would be insufficient to confer jurisdiction,19
15 Id. at 652, 742 N.W.2d at 741.
16 Quality Pork Internat. v. Rupari Food Servs., supra note 8.
17 Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, 254 Neb. 323, 576 N.W.2d 760
(1998).
18 Id. at 330, 576 N.W.2d at 765-66.
19 Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, supra note 17.

VKGS v. PLANET BINGO 	607
Cite as 285 Neb. 599
either could “count toward the minimum contacts that support
jurisdiction,”20 regardless of the absence of a party from the
forum state.
We then concluded Nebraska did have personal jurisdiction
over Red Food Stores, stating:
The instant case does not present an issue where juris-
diction is sought on the basis of a single contract or a
few contacts. Rather, Red Food Stores and BI-LO, both
corporations, engaged in an ongoing contractual and busi-
ness relationship with Crete Carrier, another corporation,
over a period of years. As part of this relationship, Red
Food Stores continually made contact with citizens of
Nebraska in order to carry out its business with Crete
Carrier. Considering the quality and nature of such con-
tacts, these activities are far from being contacts based on
the unilateral activities of someone other than Red Food
Stores; neither are they random, fortuitous, or attenuated.
Rather, Red Food Stores and BI-LO actively created con-
tinuing relationships and obligations with Nebraska citi-
zens. Furthermore, Crete Carrier’s cause of action arises
directly out of those contacts.21
In reaching its decision, this court did not specify whether it
was finding general or specific personal jurisdiction.
Another relevant case is Castle Rose v. Philadelphia Bar
& Grill.22 In that case, the predecessor of Castle Rose, Inc.,
was engaged in the development of food service operations
and franchised various food service enterprises. Castle Rose’s
primary place of business was in Nebraska. Castle Rose was
informed that Paul Kogel was interested in opening a fran-
chise in Arizona. A Castle Rose representative visited Kogel in
Arizona on several occasions. Kogel and an associate visited
Nebraska on at least two occasions but did not meet with any-
one from Castle Rose on those visits. Kogel also sent financial
information to Nebraska.
20 Id. at 330, 576 N.W.2d at 765.
21 Id. at 331-32, 576 N.W.2d at 766.
22 Castle Rose v. Philadelphia Bar & Grill, 254 Neb. 299, 576 N.W.2d 192
(1998).

608 	285 NEBRASKA REPORTS
Eventually Castle Rose and Kogel entered into a franchise
agreement. Castle Rose later sued Kogel and his corporation
for breach of contract. We concluded that “[b]y entering into
the franchise agreement, the Arizona corporation deliberately
‘reached out’ beyond Arizona and created a long-term rela-
tionship with and voluntarily assumed obligations with Castle
Rose under a contract which has a substantial connection to
Nebraska.”23 We also noted that the facts were very similar
to those of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burger King
Corp. v. Rudzewicz,24 making the result one of “little doubt.”25
Again, we did not explain whether the personal jurisdiction
conferred was general or specific.
We did, however, address whether the district court had gen-
eral or specific personal jurisdiction in Quality Pork Internat.
v. Rupari Food Servs.26 In that case, Quality Pork International
(Quality Pork), a Nebraska resident, entered into an agree-
ment (arranged by a broker) with Rupari Food Services, Inc.
(Rupari), for Quality Pork to ship products to Star Food
Processing, Inc. (Star). Quality Pork had previously done busi-
ness with Star, but Star had failed to pay and Quality Pork
discontinued the relationship. It was only Rupari’s promise to
pay that induced Quality Pork to recommence shipments to
Star. But Rupari eventually also failed to pay, and Quality Pork
sued in Nebraska.
We acknowledged that Rupari had no physical presence in
Nebraska, but that our courts nevertheless had specific per-
sonal jurisdiction, because Rupari induced Quality Pork to
send products to Star and Quality Pork’s claim for nonpayment
arose out of those contacts. We held that by purposefully con-
ducting business with Quality Pork, Rupari could reasonably
anticipate that it might be sued in Nebraska if it failed to pay
for products ordered from Quality Pork.
23 Id. at 306, 576 N.W.2d at 197.
24 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed.
2d 528 (1985).
25 Castle Rose v. Philadelphia Bar & Grill, supra note 22, 254 Neb. at 306,
576 N.W.2d at 197.
26 Quality Pork Internat. v. Rupari Food Servs., supra note 8.

VKGS v. PLANET BINGO 	609
Cite as 285 Neb. 599
In Brunkhardt v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins.,27 we
concluded that Nebraska did not have specific personal juris-
diction over an insurance company that insured a Wyoming
resident injured in an accident in Nebraska. The insurance
company was not authorized or licensed to sell insurance in
Nebraska and had never sold insurance in Nebraska; did not
have property, employees, bank accounts, offices, telephone
listings, or an agent for service of process in Nebraska; had
never advertised or solicited business in Nebraska; and did
not derive income from Nebraska. The plaintiff worked in
Nebraska, and her insurance agent was aware of that fact. But
we concluded that any contacts the insurance company had
with Nebraska were due to the unilateral actions of another
and were insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the
company in Nebraska.
Here, it is undisputed that Planet Bingo is not a Nebraska
corporation, does not have a principal place of business in
Nebraska, and does not have a Nebraska agent for service
of process. It is also undisputed that no representative from
Planet Bingo or Melange ever entered Nebraska for the pur-
pose of negotiating the original 2005 agreement or any of its
five amendments.
However, there are substantial Nebraska connections. Planet
Bingo and Video King have had an ongoing business rela-
tionship since 2000 that involves seven separate contracts,
amendments, and/or addendums, including one signed by the
parties during the pendency of this litigation. Planet Bingo
was, of course, aware that Video King was located in Nebraska
and that many of its representatives contacted Video King in
Nebraska in order to conduct such business. From the record,
it appears that this contact consisted of day-to-day business
beginning in about 2000, the negotiation of the 2005 agree-
ment and its amendments, and the failed attempt by Video
King in 2006 to acquire Melange. In fact, the affidavits
indicate that these contacts involved monthly communica-
tion via telephone, e-mail, reports, face-to-face meetings, and
conferences. By entering into these agreements, Planet Bingo
27 Brunkhardt v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., supra note 6.

610 	285 NEBRASKA REPORTS
has deliberately reached out beyond Michigan and created a
long-term relationship. By doing so, it has voluntarily assumed
obligations with Video King under a contract which has a
substantial connection to Nebraska. The U.S. Supreme Court
has held that “[j]urisdiction in these circumstances may not be
avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter
the forum State.”28
Additionally, there is evidence suggesting that Planet Bingo
did have a physical presence in the State of Nebraska. The
record shows that Planet Bingo’s head of sales is an Omaha
resident. Planet Bingo contends that he lives in, but does not do
business out of, Nebraska. Rather, Planet Bingo contends that
in his position, he is constantly traveling. However, the record
also contains an affidavit from the president of a Nebraska
distributor of bingo equipment, who avers that Planet Bingo’s
head of sales solicited business in Nebraska. He also avers that
the president of Planet Bingo, as well as the head of sales, con-
tinued to solicit his Nebraska distributing business via e-mail
and telephone.
Therefore, the district court erred in finding that Planet
Bingo did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the
State of Nebraska. The record establishes that Planet Bingo
knowingly 	and 	deliberately 	created 	continuing 	relation-
ships and obligations with Video King, a company that does
business out of Nebraska. Based on these contacts, Planet
Bingo should have reasonably anticipated being haled into a
Nebraska court.
Fair Play and Substantial Justice.
[18-20] Having concluded that Planet Bingo had the nec-
essary minimum contacts to support the exercise of personal
jurisdiction in Nebraska over Planet Bingo, we must next
weigh the facts of the case to determine whether the exercise of
personal jurisdiction would comport with “‘“fair play and sub-
stantial justice.”’”29 In doing so, we may consider the burden
28 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra note 24, 471 U.S. at 476 (emphasis
in original).
29 Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, supra note 17, 254 Neb. at 332,
576 N.W.2d at 767.

VKGS v. PLANET BINGO 	611
Cite as 285 Neb. 599
on the defendant, the interest of the forum state, the plaintiff’s
interest in obtaining relief, the judicial system’s interest in
obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and the
shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental
substantive social policies.30 These “‘other considerations’”
sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction
upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would oth-
erwise be required.31 In addition, where, as here, a defendant,
who purposefully has directed its activities at forum residents,
seeks to defeat jurisdiction, that defendant must present a
compelling case that the presence of some other considerations
would render jurisdiction unreasonable.32
With the increasing nationalization of commerce and the
ease of modern communication, defense of an action is less
burdensome in a state where one engages in economic activ-
ity.33 We recognized as early as 1987 a discernible trend toward
expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over for-
eign corporations and other nonresidents.34
Planet Bingo has failed to present a compelling case that
jurisdiction here would be unreasonable. The record is largely
devoid of any evidence or specific argument by Planet Bingo
of the burden imposed upon it if it would have to litigate this
action in Nebraska, though it generally argues in its brief that
it would be a burden. This is insufficient to meet its heavy
burden of demonstrating an absence of fairness and a lack of
substantial justice.35
[21] Furthermore, as was noted by the U.S. Supreme Court
in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz36 and by this court in S.L. v.
Steven L.,37 Nebraska has a significant interest in adjudicating
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Kugler Co. v. Growth Products Ltd., 265 Neb. 505, 658 N.W.2d 40 (2003).
34 McGowan Grain v. Sanburg, 225 Neb. 129, 403 N.W.2d 340 (1987).
35 See Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, supra note 17.
36 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra note 24.
37 S.L. v. Steven L., supra note 1.

612 	285 NEBRASKA REPORTS
the dispute, inasmuch as a state “‘generally has a “manifest
interest” in providing its residents with a convenient forum for
redressing injuries inflicted by out-of-state actors.’”38 Although
Michigan may also have an interest in a fair and efficient reso-
lution of this controversy, its interest does not outweigh that
of Nebraska.
Considering all relevant factors, we conclude that Nebraska’s
exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over Planet Bingo in
this action would not offend notions of fair play and substan-
tial justice.
CONCLUSION
Based upon our independent review of the complaint and
affidavits, viewed in a light most favorable to Video King,
we conclude that the district court for Douglas County has
specific personal jurisdiction over Planet Bingo and that it
erred in granting Planet Bingo’s motion to dismiss. Further, we
find that Nebraska’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction
over Planet Bingo in this action would not offend notions of
fair play and substantial justice. Accordingly, we reverse, and
remand for further proceedings.
reverSed And remAnded for
further proCeedinGS.
miller-lermAn, J., participating on briefs.
38 Id. at 659, 742 N.W.2d at 745.
StAte of nebrASKA, Appellee, v.
Joe J. poliCKy, AppellAnt.
828 N.W.2d 163
Filed March 29, 2013. 	No. S-12-533.
1. Judgments: Appeal and Error. On questions of law, an appellate court has an
obligation to reach independent conclusions irrespective of the decision made by
the court below.
2. Sentences: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sen-
tence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the
trial court.