Expansion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Suppliers
|
|
- Dale Percival Johnson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY Phone: Fax: Expansion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Suppliers Law360, New York (October 16, 2012, 2:08 PM ET) -- In July 2012, the Oregon Supreme Court expanded traditional notions of personal jurisdiction when it found that a Taiwanese component part manufacturer was subject to personal, or in personam, jurisdiction in Oregon despite having no direct contact with the state. See Willemsen v. Invacare Corp., 352 Or. 191, 282 P.3d 867 (Or. 2012). The decision offers an expanded notion of the minimum contacts necessary to establish personal jurisdiction, and if the decision is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, then it will have significant ramifications for foreign manufacturers who seek to conduct business in the United States. In Willemsen, CTE Corp., a Taiwanese corporation, manufactured battery chargers in Taiwan. Id. at 194, 282 P.2d at 869. and sold its battery chargers to one buyer in the United States, Invacare Corp., Id., located in Ohio. Id. Invacare used the battery chargers in the manufacture of motorized wheelchairs and, in turn, sold the wheelchairs around the country. Id. Plaintiffs filed suit against CTE and others for a death caused by an allegedly defective battery charger manufactured by CTE. Id. CTE argued that it was not subject to jurisdiction in Oregon as it transacted no business there and did not otherwise have minimum contacts with the state of Oregon. Id. The Oregon Supreme Court, however, found that the volume of wheelchairs (and incorporated battery chargers) sold in Oregon during a two-year period over 1,100 units established sufficient contacts in the state for the Oregon court to exercise personal jurisdiction over CTE. Id. at 203, 282 P.2d at 874. This article will provide a brief history of the Supreme Court precedent on personal jurisdiction, and it will analyze the soundness of the Willemsen decision in light of the precedent. This article will further discuss the potential implications for manufacturers and wholesalers if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Willemsen decision. A Brief History of In Personam Jurisdiction The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state court to render judgment against the resident of another state. See Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 91, 98 S. Ct. 1690, 1696 (1978); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878). For a state court to exercise such power, the court must have personal or in personam jurisdiction over such person. In personam jurisdiction may be established through either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. The general jurisdiction standard allows a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant if the defendant s contact with the state is continuous and systemic. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466, U.S. 408, 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1873 (1984).
2 Under specific jurisdiction, a court may obtain jurisdiction over a defendant if the defendant s contacts with the forum, albeit limited, are specific to the cause of action. See id. at 414, 104 S.Ct. at This article will focus on specific jurisdiction as that was the focus in Willemsen. Any analysis of specific in personam jurisdiction must begin with the seminal decisions of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154 (1945) and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559 (1980). In International Shoe, the state of Washington sought to impose a tax on International Shoe Company to fund the state s unemployment insurance fund. International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 312, 66 S.Ct. at 156. Over a seven-year period, International Shoe employed between 11 and 13 salesmen that operated in Washington and engaged in a number of sales over that time. Id. at , 66 S.Ct. at 157. The court referenced the oft-cited rule that to establish personal jurisdiction under the due process clause, a person must have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Id. at 316, 66 S.Ct. at 158 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339 (1940)). The court noted that the focus is not on the quantity of contacts, but on the quality and nature of the activity in relation to the fair and orderly administration of the laws. Id. at 319, 66 S.Ct. at The court ultimately held that the Washington state court could exercise jurisdiction over International Shoe due to the volume of business conducted in the state and also because International Shoe received the benefits and protection of the laws of the state, including the right to resort to the courts for the enforcement of its rights. Id. at 320, 66 S.Ct. at 160. In World-Wide Volkswagen, the Supreme Court confronted jurisdictional issues presented by the automobile. The plaintiffs were injured due to an alleged defect in their car while driving the car in Oklahoma. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 288, 100 S.Ct. 559, (1980). Plaintiffs sought to obtain jurisdiction over the New York car dealership where plaintiffs purchased the car. Id. The plaintiffs argued that the very nature of an automobile rendered it foreseeable that the car would travel in states other than where the dealership directly transacted business; thus, it was fair for Oklahoma courts to assert personal jurisdiction over the car dealership. Id. at , 100 S.Ct. at 566. The Supreme Court, however, refused to follow a strict foreseeability approach. Id. The court found that a single occurrence in a state where the dealership transacted no business was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Id. at 295, 100 S.Ct. at 566. The court added that only when a corporation purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State is the corporation subject to suit in that state. Id. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567 (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240 (1958).). The Guidance (or Lack Thereof) of Nicastro Willemsen was initially on appeal to the Supreme Court when it was remanded with instructions to reconsider in light of the Supreme Court s recent decision in J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S.Ct (2011). In Nicastro, the injured plaintiff sought damages from the English manufacturer of a metal shearing machine. Id. at The foreign manufacturing defendant J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. manufactured metal shearing machines in England and sold them to a U.S. distributor. Id., who then sold the shearing machines around the country. Id. The shearing unit involved in the incident was the only unit sold in New Jersey. Id.
3 Six justices of the Supreme Court determined that the New Jersey courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over McIntyre. The court, however, did not reach a majority opinion. A plurality of four judges held that [t]he defendant s transmission of goods permits the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant can be said to have targeted the forum; as a general rule, it is not enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum state. Id. at The plurality concluded that New Jersey courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over McIntyre because [a]t no time did petitioner engage in any activities in New Jersey that reveal an intent to invoke or benefit from the protection of its laws. Id. at Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the concurring opinion, was concerned with the plurality s use of the word targeted. Id. at 2793 (J. Breyer concurring). Justice Breyer did not believe that the court was equipped to address whether, for example, selling goods on Amazon.com targeted a particular jurisdiction. Id. Instead, Justice Breyer would have decided the case under a straightforward application of World-Wide Volkswagen; that a single sale to a customer who takes an accident-causing product to a different state (where the accident takes place) is not a sufficient basis for asserting jurisdiction. Id. at Justice Breyer would have required a regular flow or regular course of sales to establish personal jurisdiction in a particular state. Id. The Decision Thus, the Oregon Supreme Court was faced with the difficult task of deciding Willemsen by applying Nicastro without the benefit of a majority opinion. Under the Marks principle, when there is no majority opinion, the narrowest holding carries the force of precedent. See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990 (1977). The Oregon Supreme Court found that Justice Breyer s concurrence was the narrowest holding; therefore, it was precedential. Willemsen, 352 Or. at , 282 P.3d at 873. Recall that Justice Breyer found that the single sale of a good in a jurisdiction was insufficient to establish a regular flow of goods that would otherwise establish specific personal jurisdiction. See Nicastro, 131 S.Ct. at From this, the Oregon Supreme Court considered whether the volume of wheelchairs (and the incorporated battery chargers) present in the state of Oregon were sufficient to establish a regular flow in Oregon. Willemsen, 352 Or. at 203, 282 P.3d at 874. The Willemsen court found that the sale of over 1,100 wheelchairs in a two-year period was sufficient to establish minimum contacts with the state. Id. Supporters of the Willemsen decision would highlight that the holding is in accord with the narrow precedent from Nicastro. Additionally, Willemsen is perhaps more in line with the realities of a global economy. Companies across the globe manufacture products with the intent of selling their products, either directly or indirectly, in as many jurisdictions as possible across the world. Supporters would also add that it does not offend traditional notions of fair play to allow a state to assert personal jurisdiction over a corporation that derives substantial profits from the sale of more than one thousand units of its product within the state. Critics, however, would say that the decision in Willemsen ignores the history of purposeful availment jurisprudence dating back to International Shoe and World-Wide Volkswagen. As the Supreme Court stated in International Shoe, the quality of the contacts, and not the quantity, should determine whether a court may assert jurisdiction over a defendant. International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319, 66 S.Ct. at
4 Significantly, those contacts must be of such a quality that a defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum State, and enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state. World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567 (citation omitted); International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319, 66 S.Ct. at 160. CTE did not conduct activities or transact business in Oregon. CTE did not receive any benefits, privileges, or protections under Oregon law. For example, CTE would not have any rights under Oregon law if a dispute arose between CTE and Invacare. Cf. International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 320, 66 S.Ct. at 160 (stating that International Shoe maintained the right to resort to the [Washington] courts for the enforcement of its rights. ) Thus, Willemsen critics would say that CTE s contacts with Oregon were not of such a quality that it would be fair for Oregon courts to assert jurisdiction over them. What is undisputed is that if Willemsen is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, defense attorneys will have to substantially alter how they advise their foreign, national and regional clients with respect to personal jurisdiction. Implications of Willemsen Willemsen represents a significant expansion of the traditional notions of personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations. In International Shoe, the Supreme Court found personal jurisdiction because International Shoe s sales personnel were undisputedly working and making sales within Washington state. Although the quantity of the contacts was limited, the quality of the contacts indicated that International Shoe was receiving the benefits and protections of the laws of the state of Washington. In Willemsen, CTE did not direct any products or personnel to the state of Oregon. Rather, CTE directed their battery chargers to Ohio where the battery charges were incorporated into the motorized wheelchairs and were later sold to customers in Oregon by the Ohio manufacturer. Although CTE could surely foresee the potential of its product making its way to Oregon, foreseeability alone has never been sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Additionally, in Willemson, the court focused on the quantity of the contacts versus the quality and nature of the activity required by International Shoe. Prior to Willemsen, a manufacturer was safe in knowing that it could not be subjected to the jurisdiction of courts in states where it did not purposefully avail itself. The Willemsen holding, however, would allow the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a manufacturer who takes no action to place its product in the forum jurisdiction. Under Willemsen, the fact that a product, or merely component part of a product, makes its way into a jurisdiction in sufficient quantity is enough to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the product manufacturer. Furthermore, the Willemsen holding is not limited to foreign manufacturers. Local or regional wholesalers and manufacturers that operate through distributors will also have to reconsider the jurisdictions in which they can be subject to suit. CTE may file a petition for writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, and, although a Supreme Court decision would resolve the Willemsen case, the Nicastro decision strongly indicates that the Supreme Court may not provide a concrete framework for lower courts to use in evaluating these types of cases in the future. --By Michael J. Halaiko, and Matthew P. Phelps, Miles & Stockbridge PC
5 Michael Halaiko is a principal and Matthew Phelps is an associate in the Baltimore office of Miles & Stockbridge. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. All Content , Portfolio Media, Inc.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 564 U. S. (2011) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationThe Supreme Court's Personal Jurisdiction Reckoning
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Supreme Court's Personal Jurisdiction Reckoning
More informationJ. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro: The Stream-of- Commerce Theory Of Personal Jurisdiction In A Globalized Economy
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 10-1-2001 J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro: The Stream-of- Commerce Theory Of Personal Jurisdiction In A Globalized
More informationBY SHEILA A. SUNDVALL, CHRISTOPHER F. ALLEN, & SUSAN E. JACOBY. I. Introduction. Background
Russell v. SNFA: Illinois Supreme Court Adopts Expansive Interpretation of Personal Jurisdiction Under a Stream of Commerce Theory in the Wake of McIntyre v. Nicastro BY SHEILA A. SUNDVALL, CHRISTOPHER
More information2017 CO 103. No. 16SC448, Align v. Boustred Stream of Commerce Personal Jurisdiction Specific Personal Jurisdiction.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Denied March 19, 1984 COUNSEL
SWINDLE V. GMAC, 1984-NMCA-019, 101 N.M. 126, 679 P.2d 268 (Ct. App. 1984) DAWN ADRIAN SWINDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., Defendant, and BILL SWAD CHEVROLET, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-214 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NOVO NORDISK A/S,
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. NOVO NORDISK A/S, Petitioner, v. SUZANNE LUKAS-WERNER and SCOTT WERNER, Respondents.
No. 13-214 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NOVO NORDISK A/S, Petitioner, v. SUZANNE LUKAS-WERNER and SCOTT WERNER, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the Circuit Court of the
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT SOUTHERN WALL PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. STEVEN E. BOLIN and DEBORAH BOLIN, his wife, and BAKERS PRIDE OVEN COMPANY, LLC, Appellees.
More informationA Duty To Warn For The Other Manufacturer's Product?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Duty To Warn For The Other Manufacturer's Product?
More informationGOODYEAR LUXEMBOURG TIRES, S.A., GOODYEAR LASTIKLERI T.A.S. AND GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES, FRANCE,
IN THE upr mr ( ourt of GOODYEAR LUXEMBOURG TIRES, S.A., GOODYEAR LASTIKLERI T.A.S. AND GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES, FRANCE, v. Petitioners, EDGAR D. BROWN AND PAMELA BROWN, CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF
More informationRobert Nicastro, et al. v. McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd. (A-29-08)
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme
More informationCase 3:17-cv M Document 144 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 3830
Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 144 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 3830 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ZTE (USA),
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: 06/24/2016 Rel: 09/30/2016 as modified on denial of rehearing Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested
More informationBurger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz: A Whopper of an Opinion
Louisiana Law Review Volume 47 Number 4 March 1987 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz: A Whopper of an Opinion John C. Davidson Repository Citation John C. Davidson, Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz: A Whopper
More informationEmerging Trend Against Nationwide Venue In Antitrust Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Emerging Trend Against Nationwide Venue In Antitrust
More information2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
2017 WL 2621322 United States Supreme Court. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, PETITIONER v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, et al. Syllabus * No. 16 466 Argued April 25, 2017 Decided June
More informationCOLORADO SUPREME COURT 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203
COLORADO SUPREME COURT 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203 On Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 15CA1869 ALIGN CORPORATION LIMITED, Defendant-Appellant, v. ALLISTER
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-466 In the Supreme Court of the United States BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, PETITIONER v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY AT INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY AT INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI SAMUEL K. LIPARI (Assignee of Dissolved Medical Supply Chain, Inc., v. NOVATION, LLC, et al., Plaintiff, Defendants. Case No. 0816-CV-04217
More informationBRIEF FOR PETITIONER
No. 09-1343 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States J. MCINTYRE MACHINERY LTD., Petitioner, v. ROBERT NICASTRO, et ux., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY BRIEF FOR
More informationPersonal Jurisdiction Issues and the Internet
Loyola Consumer Law Review Volume 13 Issue 2 Article 5 2001 Personal Jurisdiction Issues and the Internet Stephanie A. Waxler Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr Part of
More informationDrowning in the Stream of Commerce: A Critique of Sproul v. Rob & Charles, Inc.
45 N.M. L. Rev. 829 (Summer 2015) Summer 2015 Drowning in the Stream of Commerce: A Critique of Sproul v. Rob & Charles, Inc. Elliot Barela Recommended Citation Elliot Barela, Drowning in the Stream of
More informationEugene Wolstenholme v. Joseph Bartels
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-18-2013 Eugene Wolstenholme v. Joseph Bartels Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-3767
More informationBristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court: Reproaching the Sliding Scale Approach for the Fixable Fault of Sliding Too Far
Maryland Law Review Volume 77 Issue 3 Article 7 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court: Reproaching the Sliding Scale Approach for the Fixable Fault of Sliding Too Far John V. Feliccia Follow this
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationPersonal Jurisdiction After Bristol-Myers Squibb: Unresolved Issues, Shifting Plaintiff Strategies
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Personal Jurisdiction After Bristol-Myers Squibb: Unresolved Issues, Shifting Plaintiff Strategies TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 1pm Eastern 12pm Central
More informationUsing A Contractual Consequential Damage Limitation
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Using A Contractual Consequential Damage Limitation
More informationBNSF Railway v. Tyrrell
BNSF Railway v. Tyrrell James E. Roberts SENIOR GENERAL ATTORNEY MARCH 14, 2018 Overview Introduction to BNSF Experience in Montana Courts Jurisdictional jurisprudence BNSF v Tyrrell Next Steps BNSF System
More information4/10/2017 1:02 PM COMMENTS WHEN IS IT NECESSARY FOR CORPORATIONS TO BE ESSENTIALLY AT HOME?: AN EXPLORATION OF EXCEPTIONAL CASES INTRODUCTION
COMMENTS WHEN IS IT NECESSARY FOR CORPORATIONS TO BE ESSENTIALLY AT HOME?: AN EXPLORATION OF EXCEPTIONAL CASES INTRODUCTION This comment examines the current state of the law surrounding the exercise of
More informationA Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 564 U. S. (2011) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationThe Expanding State Judicial Power over Non- Residents
Wyoming Law Journal Volume 13 Number 2 Proceedings 1958 Annual Meeting Wyoming State Bar Article 13 February 2018 The Expanding State Judicial Power over Non- Residents Bob R. Bullock Follow this and additional
More informationIn Personam Jurisdiction - General Appearance
Louisiana Law Review Volume 52 Number 3 January 1992 In Personam Jurisdiction - General Appearance Howard W. L'Enfant Louisiana State University Law Center Repository Citation Howard W. L'Enfant, In Personam
More informationF I L E D March 13, 2013
Case: 11-60767 Document: 00512172989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 13, 2013 Lyle
More informationJ. MCINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. V. NICASTRO, 131 S. CT (2011): PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND THE STREAM OF COMMERCE DOCTRINE
J. MCINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. V. NICASTRO, 131 S. CT. 2780 (2011): PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND THE STREAM OF COMMERCE DOCTRINE Veronica Hernandez* A I. INTRODUCTION MERICAN citizens expect American law to
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LSI INDUSTRIES INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, HUBBELL LIGHTING, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1052 LSI INDUSTRIES INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUBBELL LIGHTING, INC., Defendant-Appellee. J. Robert Chambers, Wood, Herron, & Evans, L.L.P.,
More informationv. Docket No Cncv
Phillips v. Daly, No. 913-9-14 Cncv (Toor, J., Feb. 27, 2015). [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying
More informationHigh Court Clarifies Tort Law But Skirts Broad Claims
Portfolio Media, Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com High Court Clarifies Tort Law But Skirts Broad Claims
More informationThe Timing of Minimum Contacts After Goodyear and McIntyre
The Timing of Minimum Contacts After Goodyear and McIntyre Todd David Peterson* ABSTRACT The Supreme Court has never articulated a reason why the minimum contacts test, which determines whether a defendant
More informationCase 6:17-cv PGB-DCI Document 284 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 17086
Case 6:17-cv-00417-PGB-DCI Document 284 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 17086 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION SUSAN STEVENSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:17-cv-417-Orl-40DCI
More informationCASE NOTE. A THROWBACK TO LESS ENLIGHTENED PRACTICES: J. MCINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. v. NICASTRO
CASE NOTE A THROWBACK TO LESS ENLIGHTENED PRACTICES: J. MCINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. v. NICASTRO ZACH VOSSELER INTRODUCTION In 1953, the Supreme Court decided Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., a case arising
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 09-1343 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States J. MCINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD., v. Petitioner, ROBERT NICASTRO, et ux., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Jersey BRIEF FOR
More informationProduct Safety & Liability Reporter
Product Safety & Liability Reporter Reproduced with permission from Product Safety & Liability Reporter, 41 PSLR 341, 3/18/2013. Copyright 2013 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationCivil Procedure Fall 2018, Professor Sample Office: Law School Room 215
Civil Procedure Fall 2018, Professor Sample james.sample@hofstra.edu Office: Law School Room 215 1. Syllabus: Reading assignments are set forth in this syllabus. The class-by-class breakdowns represent
More informationPatterson Belknap Webb 8~ Tyler LLP
Patterson Belknap Webb 8~ Tyler LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6710 212.336.2000 fax 212.336.2222 www.pbwt.com June 20, 2017 By NYSCEF and U.S. Mail Thomas P. Kurland Associate (212)336-2019
More informationPAPER SYMPOSIUM MAKING SENSE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AFTER GOODYEAR AND NICASTRO
PAPER SYMPOSIUM MAKING SENSE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AFTER GOODYEAR AND NICASTRO INTRODUCTION: DUE PROCESS, BORDERS, AND THE QUALITIES OF SOVEREIGNTY SOME THOUGHTS ON J. MCINTYRE MACHINERY V. NICASTRO
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 07/25/2014 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationThe Supreme Court Takes on Personal Jurisdiction: What the Court s Recent Opinions Tell Us About the Future of Personal Jurisdiction
The IDC Monograph Gregory W. Odom Hepler Broom, LLC, Edwardsville James L. Craney Craney Law Group, LLC, Edwardsville The Supreme Court Takes on Personal Jurisdiction: What the Court s Recent Opinions
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed April 10, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Mary E.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 2-1184 / 12-0317 Filed April 10, 2013 SHELDON WOODHURST and CARLA WOODHURST, Plaintiff-Appellants, vs. MANNY S INCORPORATED, a Corporation, d/b/a MANNY S, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 18-311 In the Supreme Court of the United States EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, v. Petitioner, MAURA HEALEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BETH ANN SMITH, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of STEPHEN CHARLES SMITH and the Estate of IAN CHARLES SMITH, and GOODMAN KALAHAR, PC, UNPUBLISHED
More informationJurisdiction in Personam Over Nonresident Corporations
Louisiana Law Review Volume 26 Number 4 June 1966 Jurisdiction in Personam Over Nonresident Corporations Billy J. Tauzin Repository Citation Billy J. Tauzin, Jurisdiction in Personam Over Nonresident Corporations,
More informationPatent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ. Law360, New
More informationJ. MCINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. v. NICASTRO U.S., 131 S.Ct. 2780, 180 L.Ed.2d 765. Supreme Court of the United States, 2011.
J. MCINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. v. NICASTRO U.S., 131 S.Ct. 2780, 180 L.Ed.2d 765. Supreme Court of the United States, 2011. JUSTICE KENNEDY announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in
More informationTexas Courts Split On Certificate Of Merit
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Texas Courts Split On Certificate Of Merit Law360,
More informationPersonal Jurisdiction After Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California
Personal Jurisdiction After Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California I. INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court decision in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California' is not primarily
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v.
Askue et al v. Aurora Corporation of America et al Doc. 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION BRADEN ASKUE and LISA ASKUE, individually and as parents
More informationA Blunder Of Supreme Propositions: General Jurisdiction After Daimler AG v. Bauman
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 10-1-2014 A Blunder Of Supreme Propositions:
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 04-222 In the Supreme Court of the United States DASSAULT AVIATION, v. Petitioner, BEVERLY ANDERSON, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-1978-L v.
Expedite It AOG, LLC v. Clay Smith Engineering, Inc. Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION EXPEDITE IT AOG, LLC D/B/A SHIP IT AOG, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 31, 2001 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 31, 2001 Session ORION PACIFIC, INC. v. EXCHANGE PLASTICS COMPANY Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. 43504 Robert E. Corlew,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-574 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ANTHONY WALDEN,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 2:14-cv-04589-WJM-MF Document 22 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 548 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, Docket
More informationTHE FUNCTIONAL AND DYSFUNCTIONAL ROLE OF FORMALISM IN FEDERALISM: SHADY GROVE VERSUS NICASTRO
THE FUNCTIONAL AND DYSFUNCTIONAL ROLE OF FORMALISM IN FEDERALISM: SHADY GROVE VERSUS NICASTRO by Glenn S. Koppel In 2010 and 2011, a fractured Supreme Court handed down two consecutive decisions which,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1171 In the Supreme Court of the United States GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, v. Petitioner, M.M. EX REL. MEYERS, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Illinois Appellate Court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. Case No.: RWT 09cv961 AMERICAN BANK HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,
More informationTC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation Jurisdiction
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com TC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-466 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, v. Petitioner, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al. Respondents. On Petition for a Writ
More informationUS V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com US V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
More informationAPPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. (D.C. No. 97-CV-1620-M)
Page 1 of 5 Keyword Case Docket Date: Filed / Added (26752 bytes) (23625 bytes) PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT INTERCON, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 98-6428
More informationISAACMAN KAUFMAN & PAINTER, P.C., a California professional corporation, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationLucia Leaves Many Important Questions Unanswered
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Lucia Leaves Many Important Questions Unanswered
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT March 27, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ANDREA GOOD, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, FUJI FIRE & MARINE
More informationPERSONAL JURISDICTION IN TOXIC TORT CASES. Personal Jurisdiction is frequently an issue in mass toxic tort litigation.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN TOXIC TORT CASES Personal Jurisdiction is frequently an issue in mass toxic tort litigation. Maryland employs a two-prong test to determine personal jurisdiction over out of state
More informationBristol-Myers Squibb: A Dangerous Sword
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Bristol-Myers Squibb: A Dangerous Sword By
More informationExtending Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (k) (2): A Way to (Partially) Clean Up The Personal Jurisdiction Mess
American University Law Review Volume 67 Issue 2 Article 2 2018 Extending Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (k) (2): A Way to (Partially) Clean Up The Personal Jurisdiction Mess Patrick J. Borchers Creighton
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-08CV0163-P
i.think inc v. Minekey Inc et al Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION i.think inc., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-08CV0163-P MINEKEY, INC.; DELIP ANDRA; and
More informationThink Twice About That Liability Disclaimer
Page 1 of 5 Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Think Twice About That Liability Disclaimer
More informationChoice of Law Provisions
Personal Jurisdiction and Forum Selection Choice of Law Provisions By Christopher Renzulli and Peter Malfa Construction contracts: recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions redefine the importance of personal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA VIRGINIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: SC04-1603 vs. Petitioner, THOMAS ALBERT DUNFORD and RACHEL PEERY, Respondents. Application For Discretionary Review
More informationCase 1:15-cv LTS Document 80 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 8. No. 15 CV 3212-LTS
Case 1:15-cv-03212-LTS Document 80 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x HARBOUR VICTORIA INVESTMENT
More information1 See Austin L. Parrish, Sovereignty, Not Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction over Nonresident
CIVIL PROCEDURE PERSONAL JURISDICTION D.C. CIRCUIT DISMISSES SUIT AGAINST NATIONAL PORT AUTHORITY OF LIBERIA FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. GSS Group Ltd. v. National Port Authority, 680 F.3d 805 (D.C.
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES. MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge. WE CONCUR: A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge. AUTHOR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL.
MONKS OWN LTD. V. MONASTERY OF CHRIST IN THE DESERT, 2006-NMCA-116, 140 N.M. 367, 142 P.3d 955 MONKS OWN LIMITED and ST. BENEDICTINE BISCOP BENEDICTINE CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MONASTERY OF
More informationMinimum Contacts And Contracts: The Breached Relationship
Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 40 Issue 4 Article 12 Fall 9-1-1983 Minimum Contacts And Contracts: The Breached Relationship Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr
More informationProduct Liability Update
Product Liability Update In This Issue: July 2011 State Law Rule Mandating Classwide Arbitration of Consumer Claims Stands as Obstacle to Purposes of Federal Arbitration Act and Is Therefore Preempted
More informationCase 2:10-cv KS -MTP Document 125 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:10-cv-00236-KS -MTP Document 125 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION MARY AINSWORTH, Widow and Personal Representative
More informationCurrent Status of Personal and General Jurisdiction in Minnesota
William Mitchell Law Review Volume 16 Issue 1 Article 7 1990 Current Status of Personal and General Jurisdiction in Minnesota Carole Lofness Baab Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr
More informationINTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LITIGATION COURSE SYLLABUS Bucerius Law School Summer School July 2016 Prof. Dr. Peter Huber Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany peter.huber@uni-mainz.de Thank you for
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 66
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 66 THE STATE OF WYOMING, by and through the State Treasurer of Wyoming and the State of Wyoming Retirement System, Appellant (Plaintiff), APRIL TERM, A.D.
More informationLessons From Inter Partes Review Denials
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Lessons From Inter Partes Review Denials Law360, New
More information4 Takeaways From The High Court's New Rule On RICO's Reach
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 4 Takeaways From The High Court's New Rule
More informationPatentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change Law360,
More informationCIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY #5. Morgan additionally asserted the following as damages: Blueprints: $20,000 Land Purchase: $20,000 Grading of Land: $20,000
CIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY #5. Morgan filed a claim in Federal Court in State A where he had his only residence, stating, inter alia, that Builders, Inc. had breached a contract to build his house. More specifically,
More informationIN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No CV. From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. D CV MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-15-00227-CV RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. DBA RYAN MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, v. THOMAS E. NOTCH, PE DBA NOTCH ENGINEERING COMPANY, Appellant Appellee From the 13th District
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 09-1343 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States J. MCINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD., Petitioner, v. ROBERT NICASTRO, et al., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Jersey BRIEF OF
More informationHow Escobar Reframes FCA's Materiality Standard
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How Escobar Reframes FCA's Materiality Standard
More informationShari'ah Compliance Does Not Affect English Law Payments
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Shari'ah Compliance Does Not Affect English
More informationBase Metal Trading v. OJSC
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-5-2002 Base Metal Trading v. OJSC Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-3348 Follow this
More informationLexmark Could Profoundly Impact Patent Exhaustion
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Lexmark Could Profoundly Impact Patent Exhaustion
More information