receipt requested, but this applied only to mail within the state. Alaska Supreme Court Order No. 90 (July 24, 1967). Rule 4(h) was amended in 1977 to allow for service by registered or certified mail anywhere in the United States. Alaska Supreme Court Order No. 266 (March 31, 1977). 26 . AS 09.05.015(a)(3) provides: A court of this state having jurisdiction over the subject matter has jurisdiction over a person served in an action according to the rules of civil procedure (3) in an action claiming injury to person or property in or out of this state arising out of an act or omission in this state by the defendant{[.] 27 . Hawai'i 1, 967 P.2d 1059 (1998). 28 . Id. at 1060, 1061. 29 ._ Id. at 1064. 30 . Id. 31 . Id. at 1062-63. 32 . E.g., Dew v. Appleberry, 23 Cal.3d 630, 15 Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Tesar v. Hallas, 738 F.Supp. 240, 241-42
holding nonresident defendant did not submit to general jurisdiction of texas courts merely by executing contract with resident holding that because dr medeiros a former california resident moved to texas to take a new job in 1998 thereby engaging in interstate commerce the tolling statute could not be applied under bendix holding that nonresident defendants failure to make payments in florida coupled with forum selection clause sufficient for court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor holding that californias tolling statute could not constitutionally be applied to a nonresident entering into a sales transaction with a resident since the nonresident was engaged in interstate commerce