Page:Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Morrow Valley Land Co.pdf/19

 648 S.W.2d 460 (1983); ''Tri-State Equip. Co. v. Tedder'', 272 Ark. 408, 614 S.W.2d 938 (1981); Yarbrough v. Prentice Lee Tractor Co., 252 Ark. 349, 479 S.W.2d 549 (1972). This standard comports with Rule 52(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that "in all contested actions tried upon the facts without a jury, [f]indings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous (clearly against the preponderance of the evidence)[.]" By analogy, we also employ the same standard of review when considering a circuit court's findings regarding the sufficiency of a defendant's contacts with the forum state in deciding whether there is personal jurisdiction. Yanmar Co., Ltd. v. Slater, 2012 Ark. 36, ___ S.W.3d ___; John Norrell Arms, Inc. v. Higgins, 332 Ark. 24, 962 S.W.2d 801 (1998); see also Wis. Brick & Block Corp. v. Cole, 274 Ark. 121, 622 S.W.2d 192 (1981) (the issue of whether sufficient minimum contacts exist is a question of fact); Ratliff v. Thompson, 267 Ark. 349, 590 S.W.2d 291 (1979) (same).

While the issue of which state has the most significant relationship is ordinarily a question of fact, this case comes to us from an order of partial summary judgment, where the parties agree that there are no facts in dispute. Accordingly, our review must focus on the circuit court's application of the law to the facts. ''Harasyn v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co.'', 349 Ark. 9, 75 S.W.3d 696 (2002); ''Chamberlin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.'', 343 Ark. 392, 36 S.W.3d 281 (2001); ''Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.'', 334 Ark. 73, 971 S.W.2d 248 (1998). In this regard, a circuit court's conclusions of law are given no deference on appeal. Morningstar v. Bush, 2011 Ark. 350, ___ S.W.3d ___. In my view, the circuit court correctly applied the law to the undisputed facts of this case to conclude that Arkansas has the most significant contacts in this case. Therefore, I agree that the circuit court did not err in