Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,343 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Federal Case Categories







Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v Brown

Case No. 10–76 (Sup. Ct., Jun. 27, 2011)

Respondents, North Carolina residents whose sons died in a bus accident outside Paris, France, filed a suit for wrongful-death damages in North Carolina state court. Alleging that the accident was caused by tire failure, they named as defendants Goodyear USA, an Ohio corporation, and petitioners, three Goodyear USA subsidiaries, organized and operating, respectively, in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France. Petitioners’ tires are manufactured primarily for European and Asian markets and differ in size and construction from tires ordinarily sold in the United States. Petitioners are not registered to do business in North Carolina; have no place of business, employees, or bank accounts in the State; do not design, manufacture, or advertise their products in the State; and do not solicit business in the State or sell or ship tires to North Carolina customers. Even so, a small percentage of their tires were distributed in North Carolina by other Goodyear USA affiliates. The trial court denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss the claims against them for want of personal jurisdiction. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the North Carolina courts had general jurisdiction over petitioners, whose tires had reached the State through “the stream of commerce.”

Held: Petitioners were not amenable to suit in North Carolina on claims unrelated to any activity of petitioners in the forum State.Pp. 6–14.

(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause sets the outer boundaries of a state tribunal’s authority to proceed against a defendant. The pathmarking decision of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, provides that state courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has “certain minimum contacts with [the State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Id., at 316. Endeavoring to give specific content to the “fair play and substantial justice” concept, the Court in International Shoe classified cases involving out-of-state corporate defendants. First, the Court recognized that jurisdiction could be asserted where the corporation's in-state activity is “continuous and systematic” and gave rise to the episode-in-suit. Id., at 317. It also observed that the commission of “single or occasional acts” in a State may be sufficient to render a corporation answerable in that State with respect to those acts, though not with respect to matters unrelated to the forum connections. Id., at 318. These two categories compose what is now known as “specific jurisdiction.” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, 466 U. S. 408, 414, n. 8. International Shoe distinguished from cases that fit within the “specific jurisdiction” categories, “instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.” 326 U. S., at 318. Adjudicatory authority so grounded is now called “general jurisdiction.” Helicopteros, 466 U. S., at 414, n. 9. Since International Shoe, this Court’s decisions have elaborated primarily on circumstances that warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction. In only two decisions postdating International Shoe has this Court considered whether an out-of-state corporate defendant’s in-state contacts were sufficiently “continuous and systematic” to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction over claims unrelated to those contacts: Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U. S. 437; and Helicopteros, 466 U. S. 408. Pp. 6–9.

(b) Petitioners lack “the kind of continuous and systematic general business contacts” necessary to allow North Carolina to entertain asuit against them unrelated to anything that connects them to the State. Helicopteros, 466 U. S., at 416. The stream-of-commerce cases on which the North Carolina court relied relate to exercises of specific jurisdiction in products liability actions, in which a nonresident defendant, acting outside the forum, places in the stream of commerce a product that ultimately causes harm inside the forum. Many state long-arm statutes authorize courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over manufacturers when the events in suit, or some of them, occurred within the forum State. The North Carolina court’s stream-of-commerce analysis elided the essential difference between case-specific and general jurisdiction. Flow of a manufacturer’s products into the forum may bolster an affiliation germane to specific jurisdiction, see, e.g., World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 297; but ties serving to bolster the exercise of specific jurisdiction do not warrant a determination that, based on those ties, the forum has general jurisdiction over a defendant. A corporation’s “continuous activity of some sorts within a state,” International Shoe instructed, “is not enough to support the demand that the corporation be amenable to suits unrelated to that activity.” 326 U. S., at 318.
 

 

Judge(s): Ruth Ginsburg
Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court
Related Categories: Business Organizations , Civil Procedure , Product Liability , Torts , Transportation
 
Supreme Court Judge(s)
Samuel Alito
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Elena Kagan
Anthony Kennedy
John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Sonia Sotomayor
Clarence Thomas

 
Amicus Lawyer(s) Amicus Law Firm(s)
Peter Rutledge Law Office
Alan Untereiner Robbins Russell Englert Orseck Untereiner & Sauber LLP
Carter Phillips Sidley Austin LLP
Benjamin Horwich United States Department of Justice
Neal Katyal United States Department of Justice
Donald Verrilli, Jr. United States Department of Justice
Cory Andrews Washington Legal Foundation
Gene Schaerr Winston & Strawn LLP

 
Petitioner Lawyer(s) Petitioner Law Firm(s)
Meir Feder Jones Day

 
Respondent Lawyer(s) Respondent Law Firm(s)
Mark Holt Kirby & Holt LLP
Collyn Peddie Law Offices of Collyn Peddie

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
owner and operator of the helicopter, a colombian corpo- statute authorizes north carolina courts to exercise per- the united states stream of commerce, . . . would not be i v. brown gation we here consider. attributing the accident to a tional shoe, 326 u. s., at 317. specific jurisdiction, on the tinuous activity of some sorts within a state," international shoe bourg), goodyear lastikleri t. a. s. (goodyear turkey), occurred outside the forum. see 199 n. c. app., at 61, 2 goodyear dunlop tires operations, s. a. gave north carolina courts the handle needed for the ized vehicles such as cement mixers, waste haulers, and shoe has this court considered whether an out-of-state corporate de- nese valve assembly manufacturer; japanese company's citizens who died in a helicopter crash in peru instituted tained his office there, kept the company files in that ington, d. c. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order keeton v. hustler magazine, inc., 465 u. s. 770, 779780, with respect to those acts, though not with respect to to the state. helicopteros, 466 u. s., at 416.5 e.g., world-wide volkswagen, 444 u. s., at 297 (where "the justify the exercise of general jurisdiction over claims of cal., solano cty., 480 u. s. 102, 105 (1987) (taiwanese ministrators of the boys' estates. attributing the accident strated petitioners' own "calculated and deliberate efforts to take in part and concurring in judgment). see also twitchell, principal place of business as "paradig[m]" bases for the dent outside paris, france, filed a suit for wrongful-death damages in [our] law comparable to . . . article 14 of the civil code of france (1804) permissible in perkins because "ohio was the corporation's 6 in the brief they filed in the north carolina court of appeals, re- the court determined, when petitioners placed their tires in california and sought indemnification there from japa- tion, see, e.g., world-wide volkswagen corp. v. woodson, 444 u. s. north carolina." id., at 67, 681 s. e. 2d, at 394. 200, 203, n. 5 (cadc 1981) (defendants' marketing ar- v. brown age of their tires were distributed in north carolina by other good- contract-negotiation session; accepting into its new york that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. in contrast to the parent company, goodyear usa, curred within the forum state. the north carolina court's stream-of- 199 n. c. app. 50, 681 s. e. 2d 382, reversed. et al. v. brown et ux., co-administrators of "in the stream of interstate commerce without any limita- the north carolina court's stream-of-commerce analysis firmed. acknowledging that the claims neither "related tended to make available to the north carolina courts the full juris- or property within this state arising out of [the defen- 5cite as: 564 u. s. ____ (2011) ucts in north carolina. and they do not solicit business in (north carolina court of appeals understood that peti- reach the forum state in the stream of commerce" held carolina beginning their journey home. two 13-year-olds, syllabus turer's products into the forum, we have explained, may foreign act" subsection of north carolina's long-arm tion over a defendant. see, e.g., stabilisierungsfonds fur "unitary business," so that jurisdiction over the parent would draw in distribution process" involving other goodyear usa sub- an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of 1952 decision in perkins v. benguet consol. mining co. bution before reaching the ultimate consumer." 18 w. trautman, jurisdiction to adjudicate: a suggested analy- with the forum. id., at 58, 681 s. e. 2d, at 388 (internal "general rather than specific jurisdiction," which the court that, based on those ties, the forum has general jurisdic- adjudicatory authority so grounded is today called "gen- jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if the defendant held: petitioners were not amenable to suit in north carolina on international shoe categories is "specific jurisdiction." see outer boundaries of a state tribunal's authority to proceed against a carolina," the court of appeals confined its analysis to carolina with those of goodyear usa and other goodyear both the act alleged to have caused injury (the fabrication against it on causes of action arising from dealings en- prepared by the reporter of decisions for the convenience of the reader. _________________ substantial justice" concept, the court in international them on claims unrelated to anything that connects them of the tires made abroad by goodyear's foreign subsidiar- a forum in which it would be permissible to subject petitioners to goodyear dunlop tires operations, s. a., corporations organized and operating abroad. we address, support the demand that the corporation be amenable to any claim for relief, wherever its products are distributed. ration. the colombian corporation had no place of busi- l. rev. 1, 14, 2930 (1986) (merging parent and subsidiary opinion of the court the myth of general jurisdiction, 101 harv. l. rev. 610, usa, an ohio corporation also named as a defendant in specific jurisdiction. see calder v. jones, 465 u. s. 783, 788 (1984); von state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its priately exercised over a foreign corporation that has not in european and asian markets. their tires differ in size do not here deny, that the type of tire involved in the destined for sale in the united states. to facilitate trade, the solicitor to a tire that failed when its plies separated, the parents added). see also brief in opposition 18. read in context, that assertion 3cite as: 564 u. s. ____ (2011) opinion of the court for want of personal jurisdiction. the trial court denied to, nor . . . ar[o]se from, [petitioners'] contacts with north the defendant's activities in texas. id., at 415416. this court sees n. 6, 681 s. e. 2d, at 390, n. 6.4 specific and general jurisdiction. flow of a manufacturer's products pp. 614. being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. effort to "outsource" all manufacturing, and correspondingly, tort opinion of the court nothing in the record, the court observed, indicated defendant "[i]s engaged in substantial activity within this state, dictional powers permissible under federal due process." dillon v. was doing so in ohio: the corporation's president main- 628 (1988) (in the wake of international shoe, "specific ippines during world war ii. to the extent that the com- titioners' tires are manufactured primarily for european and asian texas enterprise]; and sending personnel to [texas] for training." amendment's due process clause. international shoe respondents, north carolina residents whose sons died in a bus acci- jurisdiction has become the centerpiece of modern jurisdic- opinion of the court business in north carolina. they have no place of busi- this provision, the north carolina supreme court has held, was "in- confusing or blending general and specific jurisdictional review. brown v. meter, 364 n. c. 128, 695 s. e. 2d 756 but cf. world-wide volkswagen, 444 u. s., at 296 (every stream of commerce a product that ultimately causes contention. pp. 1314. no. 1076. argued january 11, 2011 --decided june 27, 2011 necessary to empower north carolina courts to entertain tioners is consistent with the due process clause of the helicopteros concluded that "mere purchases [made in lina is not a forum in which it would be permissible to status as subsidiaries and treatment of all goodyear entities as a 199 n. c. app., at 57, 681 s. e. 2d, at 388, which provides for jurisdic- notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" id., at 316 sary to empower north carolina to entertain suit against elaborated primarily on circumstances that warrant the other hand, depends on an "affiliatio[n] between the forum action for damages in a north carolina state court; they ------------ inquiries, the north carolina courts answered yes. some north carolina; have no place of business, employees, or bank ac- "mere awareness . . . that the components it manufac- the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment supreme court of the united states subject petitioners to general jurisdiction. unlike the tioners' tires sporadically made in north carolina through exercise of general jurisdiction over the foreign corpora- found to exist in perkins," and were insufficient to support of continuous and systematic general business contacts . . . that petitioners "took any affirmative action to cause tires ory, asking us to consolidate petitioners' ties to north commission of "single or occasional acts" in a state may be sufficient syllabus grounded is now called "general jurisdiction." helicopteros, 466 u. s., product in a state do not justify the exercise of jurisdiction over a claim 2 goodyear dunlop tires operations, s. a. tion theory, while general jurisdiction plays a reduced state [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit which they had manufactured to be shipped into north of julian david brown, et al. purchasing helicopters, equipment, and training services from [a but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distribu- ------------ tion's in-state activity is "continuous and systematic" and tured, sold, and delivered outside the united states would the court recognized that jurisdiction could be asserted where the suits unrelated to that activity." 326 u. s., at 318. our sued in ohio, the defendant in perkins was a philippine co. v. washington, 326 u. s. 310, 316 (1945) (assertion of may maintain breach-of-contract action in florida against and operating, respectively, in luxembourg, turkey, and france. pe- markets and differ in size and construction from tires ordinarily sold whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise." opinion of the court seek redress for [their] injuries," and noted the hardship * * * wide efforts to design, manufacture, market and sell their tires in the north carolina state court. alleging that the accident was caused by ing into its new york bank account checks drawn on a houston bank; phasis added)). but ties serving to bolster the exercise markings required for sale in the united states. ibid.2 as mehren & trautman 1136. tion, "whether the claim arises within or without [the] state," when the 12 goodyear dunlop tires operations, s. a. reversed. for jurisdictional purposes requires an inquiry "compara- and goodyear dunlop tires france, sa (goodyear sponsible for the presence in north carolina of tires that yet turkey, where the tire alleged to have caused the accident-in-suit personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has "certain ness, employees, or bank accounts in north carolina. no reason to differentiate from the ties to texas held insufficient in wrongful-death actions in a texas state court against the action not related to those purchase transactions." id., at opinion of the court exercise of specific jurisdiction, particularly in cases in- shoe decision have differentiated between general or all- defective tire manufactured in turkey at the plant of a co. v. teamsters, 561 u. s. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 16). which does not contest the north carolina courts' personal general jurisdiction. in the 1952 perkins case, general jurisdiction carolina through intermediaries. pp. 913. to the defendant's contacts with the forum." helicopteros, bia, s. a. v. hall, 466 u. s. 408, 414, n. 8. international shoe distin- the state, see supra, at 45, fall far short of the "the con- rum has general jurisdiction over a defendant. a corporation's "con- fletcher, cyclopedia of the law of corporations 8640.40, claims unrelated to the foreign corporation's contacts with peals invoked the state's "well-recognized interest in providing a forum product has traveled through an extensive chain of distri- ble to the corporate law question of piercing the corporate therefore subject to the state's regulation. von mehren & them essentially at home in the forum state. see interna- business," so that jurisdiction over the parent would draw and inspection" of the tire. 199 n. c. app., at 51, 681 s. e. usa's foreign subsidiaries, however, maintained that required to litigate their claims in france," a country to in helicopteros. in that case, survivors of united states tioners' tires (tens of thousands out of tens of millions ness in texas and was not licensed to do business there. corporation's in-state activity is "continuous and systematic" and air transport corp., 652 f. 2d 1032, 1037 (cadc 1981). carolina customers. even so, a small percentage of peti- united states, including in north carolina." app. 485 (emphasis est in providing a forum in which its citizens are able to north carolina as a consequence of a "highly-organized atic" to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction over claims unre- loads, and to serve under road conditions and speed limits on which the north carolina court relied relate to exercises of specific there been the source of injury to its owner or to others" (em- ration, and petitioners, three goodyear usa subsidiaries, organized within the forum state. for example, the "local injury; amenable to general jurisdiction in north carolina courts? 382, 388 (2009). were the foreign subsidiaries nonetheless "derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed . . . in the 11cite as: 564 u. s. ____ (2011) respondents would have us pierce goodyear corporate personal jurisdiction "over a nonresident automobile re- by goodyear turkey, was never distributed in north the state are so "continuous and systematic" as to render whose tires had reached the state through "the stream of commerce." north carolina court of appeals, any substantial manu- of sending its chief executive officer to houston for a in ohio, this court ruled that it would not violate due has "certain minimum contacts with [the state] such that into the forum may bolster an affiliation germane to specific jurisdic- tirely distinct from those activities." 326 u. s., at 318. lished by the u. s. department of transportation and bore mehren & trautman 11671173. act by which the defendant purposefully avail[ed] itself of 286, 287, 297 (1980) (oklahoma court may not exercise diction over a claim that neither " `ar[o]se out of' . . . no[r] related to" of o'connor, j.); id., at 116117 (brennan, j., concurring in france, and the tire alleged to have caused the accident intermediaries. under the sprawling view of general opinion of the court fendant must have "continuous and systematic contacts" litigation, to foreign jurisdictions. see brief for respondents 5153. acts, though not with respect to matters unrelated to the forum con- sidiaries. id., at 67, 681 s. e. 2d, at 394. petitioners, the home in north carolina. their attenuated connections to vors of u. s. citizens who died in the crash, the court (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any volving "single or occasional acts" occurring or having ing helicopters, equipment, and training services from [a sustained." 199 n. c. app., at 68, 681 s. e. 2d, at 394. but "[g]eneral play and substantial justice" concept, the court in international shoe fendant's in-state contacts were sufficiently "continuous and system- tor to serve . . . the market for its product in [several] new york residents became involved in an accident in on writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of v. brown in the subsidiaries as well.6 brief for respondents 44. north carolina plaintiffs would experience "[were they] sale of a product . . . is not simply an isolated occurrence, laws." hanson v. denckla, 357 u. s. 235, 253 (1958). see, 1cite as: 564 u. s. ____ (2011) veil"). but see 199 n. c. app., at 64, 681 s. e. 2d, at 392 of specific jurisdiction do not warrant a determination tion over defendant who "caus[es] tortious injury in the [forum] by an u. s. 437; and helicopteros, 466 u. s. 408. pp. 69. headquarters); asahi metal industry co. v. superior court that activity gave rise to the episode-in-suit. 326 u. s., at was offered in support of a narrower proposition: the distribution of been invoked frequently in lower court decisions permit- a state court's assertion of jurisdiction exposes defen- certain "single or occasional acts" in a state may be suffi- process for ohio to adjudicate the controversy. ibid.; see proceed against a defendant. shaffer v. heitner, 433 u. s. notice: this opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the owned by colombian corporation crashed in peru; survi- (2010). 2d, at 384 (internal quotation marks omitted). onslow county, north carolina, in their capacity as ad- not establish the "continuous and systematic" affiliation lacked specific jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy. (quoting meyer, 311 u. s., at 463). ies in the forum state? exercise of general jurisdiction. such a connection does in which its citizens are able to seek redress for injuries that they have ties in texas. id., at 415416 (internal quotation marks seller of chattels does not, by virtue of the sale, "appoint corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the ers' placement of their tires in the "stream of commerce." ------------ sonal jurisdiction in "any action claiming injury to person the subsidiaries as well. respondents have therefore forfeited this fendant, acting outside the forum, places in the stream of commerce a found, however, that tires made by petitioners reached states. they are designed to carry significantly heavier be amenable to suits unrelated to that activity." 326 u. s., at 318. ately after the japanese occupation of the philippines, it (french law permitting plaintiff-based jurisdiction is rarely invoked instructed, "is not enough to support the demand that the corporation adjudication of "issues deriving from, or connected with, 466 u. s. 408, 414, nn. 8, 9 (1984). 1(slip opinion) october term, 2010 numismatic funding corp., 291 n. c. 674, 676, 231 s. e. 2d 629, 630 state's long-arm statute "does not apply to this case," for the privilege of conducting activities within the forum general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile; for a which the continuous corporate operations within a state the north carolina court's jurisdiction over it; goodyear v. brown mining corporation that had ceased activities in the phil- the exercise of jurisdiction over a claim that neither in opposition to the petition for certiorari did respondents opinion of the court mehren & trautman); see brilmayer et al., a general reaching the north carolina market." id., at 66, 681 s. e. manufactured between 2004 and 2007) were distributed executive officer to houston for a contract-negotiation session; accept- we do not address it. this court's rule 15.2; granite rock "`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice'" business contacts" necessary to allow north carolina to entertain a turers when the events in suit, or some of them, occurred outside the forum causes injury in the forum, by contrast, a plaintiff's v. brown bolster an affiliation germane to specific jurisdiction. see, accident, a goodyear regional rhs tire manufactured syllabus eral jurisdiction." helicopteros, 466 u. s., at 414, n. 9. for (quoting milliken v. meyer, 311 u. s. 457, 463 (1940))). mains international shoe, 326 u. s. 310, in which we held 317. further, the court observed, the commission of because the episode-in-suit, the bus accident, occurred many states have enacted long-arm statutes authoriz- alleged negligence in the "design, construction, testing, court on claims unrelated to any activity of the subsidiar- supreme court of the united states tion[,] at or about the time of the injury," "[p]roducts . . . their impact within the forum state. as a rule in these notify the reporter of decisions, supreme court of the united states, wash- was appropriately exercised over a philippine corporation sued in against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct in the absence of other supporting factors). when a defendant's act julian brown and matthew helms, sustained fatal inju- 9cite as: 564 u. s. ____ (2011) within the "specific jurisdiction" categories, "instances in of the allegedly defective tire) and its impact (the accident) rangements, although "adequate to permit litigation of the north carolina court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the see supra, at 5. the stream-of-commerce metaphor has see united states v. detroit timber & lumber co., 200 u. s. 321, 337. v. brown "basically, [the company's] contacts with texas consisted tively, petitioners are indirect subsidiaries of goodyear helicopteros, the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in north omitted). texas enterprise] for substantial sums; and sending per- could not maintain wrongful-death actions against that corporation north carolina or themselves sell or ship tires to north defendants. first, as in international shoe itself, jurisdic- the state. airport overturned on a road outside paris, france. pas- since international shoe, this court's decisions have syllabus are not enough to warrant a state's assertion of [general] matters unrelated to the forum connections. id., at 318. the syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been purpose jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction is confined to (c) neither below nor in their brief in opposition to the petition for larly engaged in commercial activity there, did not contest oklahoma"); burger king corp. v. rudzewicz, 471 u. s. a corporation's "continuous activity of some sorts within 5 as earlier noted, see supra, at 6, the north carolina court of ap- remains "[t]he textbook case of general jurisdiction appro- incorporated in luxembourg, turkey, and france, respec- colombian corporation in texas, for the corporation's suit against them unrelated to anything that connects them to the fourteenth amendment. 561 u. s. ___ (2010). in texas, where the company's contacts "consisted of sending its chief c occurrence that takes place in the forum state and is 3 cf. d. c. code 13423(a)(4) (2001) (providing for specific jurisdic- et ux., co-administrators of the estate respondents have therefore forfeited this contention, and justice ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court. the estate of brown, et al. for the reasons stated, the judgment of the north caro- in particular, this question: are foreign subsidiaries of a these tires were typically custom ordered to equip special- defendant. the pathmarking decision of international shoe co. v. within this state in the ordinary course of trade." n. c. we next addressed the exercise of general jurisdiction quotation marks omitted). that threshold was crossed, jurisdiction in products liability actions, in which a nonresident de- 462, 474475 (1985) (franchisor headquartered in florida this case concerns the jurisdiction of state courts over within north carolina by other goodyear usa affiliates. 4 goodyear dunlop tires operations, s. a. authority"). from those activities." 326 u. s., at 318. adjudicatory authority so commerce analysis elided the essential difference between case- 466 u. s., at 416. these links to texas did not "constitute the kind of brown v. meter, 199 n. c. app. 50, 5758, 681 s. e. 2d unrelated to those sales. (b) petitioners lack "the kind of continuous and systematic general a lated to those contacts: perkins v. benguet consol. mining co., 342 ground for jurisdiction." von mehren & trautman 1137; see clermont united states parent corporation amenable to suit in state the chattel his agent for service of process"). claims unrelated to any activity of petitioners in the forum state. paisley, personal jurisdiction and substantive legal tire manufacturer settled product liability action brought they had manufactured"). neither below nor in their brief discussed infra, at 1113, has this court considered 13-year-old boys from north carolina gave rise to the liti- ries, "instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a and construction from tires ordinarily sold in the united sonnel to [texas] for training." 466 u. s., at 416. these named as defendants goodyear usa, an ohio corporation, dant's] act or omission outside this state," if, "in addi- they do not design, manufacture, or advertise their prod- pany was conducting any business during and immedi- ries. the boys' parents, respondents in this court, filed a eral jurisdiction). bank account checks drawn on a houston bank; purchas- a connection so limited between the forum and the for- opinion of the court supplies markets in europe and asia. the motion, and the north carolina court of appeals af- opinions in the wake of the pathmarking international (a) the fourteenth amendment's due process clause sets the measured against helicopteros and perkins, north caro- 13cite as: 564 u. s. ____ (2011) "ar[o]se out of . . . no[r] related to" the defendant's activi- look at general jurisdiction, 66 texas l. rev. 721, 782 ist in perkins," and were insufficient to support the exercise of juris- carolina." id., at 64, 681 s. e. 2d, at 392. the court helicopter purchases and purchase-linked activity in based on the plaintiff's relationship to the forum. there is nothing in shoe classified cases involving out-of-state corporate suit for wrongful-death damages in the superior court of veils, at least for jurisdictional purposes. see brilmayer & in ohio, where the company's affairs were overseen during relations: corporations, conspiracies, and agency, 74 cal. and all claims against them when their affiliations with no. 1076 "treat compliance with [department of transportation] standards, in- advantage of the north carolina market." app. 485. as already reached north carolina through "the stream of com- jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation in a cause of a state," international shoe instructed, "is not enough to tion do not warrant a determination that, based on those ties, the fo- insufficient to permit california court's adjudication of certiorari to the court of appeals of north carolina texas held insufficient in helicopteros, the sales of peti- elided the essential difference between case-specific and tailer and its wholesale distributor in a products-liability ------------ jurisdiction urged by respondents and embraced by the tioners, the north carolina courts relied on the petition- thority is "specific" when the suit "aris[es] out of or relate[s] v. brown lina court of appeals is tion. helicopteros nacionales de colombia, s. a. v. hall, are safely manufactured." brief for united states as amicus curiae 32. consented to suit in the forum." donahue v. far eastern appropriately exercised over philippine corporation sued eign corporation, we hold, is an inadequate basis for the gen. stat. ann. 175.4(4)(b) (lexis 2009).3 as the north 8 goodyear dunlop tires operations, s. a. 728 (identifying domicile, place of incorporation, and 1 respondents portray goodyear usa's structure as a reprehensible which they have no ties. id., at 68, 681 s. e. 2d, at 394. tioners are "separate corporate entities . . . not directly re- the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction." von action, when the defendants' only connection with okla- [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit of the stream-of-commerce doctrine). goodyear dunlop tires operations, s. a., to render a corporation answerable in that state with respect to those jurisdiction to adjudicate has in [united states] practice never been over manufacturers when the events in suit, or some of them, oc- or ship tires to north carolina customers. even so, a small percent- ------------ counts in the state; do not design, manufacture, or advertise their [june 27, 2011] dent defendant, acting outside the forum, places in the ii. in helicopteros, however, the survivors of u. s. citizens killed held, could not maintain wrongful-death actions against the adequate to support general, `all purpose' adjudicatory (1988) (hereinafter brilmayer). in contrast to general, all- v. brown going interactions between franchisees and franchisor's justice.' " id., at 316. endeavoring to give specific content to the "fair in only two decisions postdating international shoe, states, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one a bus accident outside paris that took the lives of two minimum contacts with [the state] such that the maintenance of the the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional ies, the north carolina court of appeals stressed, had state. helicopteros, 466 u. s., at 416. the stream-of-commerce cases opinion of the court product that ultimately causes harm inside the forum. many state world war ii); and helicopteros, 466 u. s. 408 (helicopter spondents stated that petitioners were part of an "integrated world- goodyear luxembourg tires, sa (goodyear luxem- links to texas, we determined, did not "constitute the kind 186, 207 (1977). the canonical opinion in this area re- manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed, nections. id., at 318. these two categories compose what is now explained, see supra, at 1213, even regularly occurring sales of a b guished from cases that fit within the "specific jurisdiction" catego- office, and supervised from the ohio office "the necessarily ting "jurisdiction in products liability cases in which the tions. id., at 6768, 681 s. e. 2d, at 394395. _________________ contacts were sufficiently "continuous and systematic" to (1977). ing courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over manufac- pany (goodyear usa), the boys' parents commenced an suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial mining co., 342 u. s. 437 (1952) (general jurisdiction role"). homa is the fact that an automobile sold in new york to jurisdiction over out-of-state corporation must comply with carolina court of appeals recognized, this provision of the of those states if its allegedly defective merchandise has p. 133 (rev. ed. 2007). typically, in such cases, a nonresi- north carolina year usa, which had plants in north carolina and regu- endeavoring to give specific content to the "fair play and international shoe distinguished from cases that fit urge disregard of petitioners' discrete status as subsidiar- tion on the extent to which those tires could be sold in the court observed, conformed to tire standards estab- opinion of the court jurisdiction the north carolina courts asserted over peti- north carolina courts had general jurisdiction over petitioners, over an out-of-state corporation over three decades later, foreign subsidiary of the goodyear tire and rubber com- further support, the court invoked north carolina's "inter- sis, 79 harv. l. rev. 1121, 1136 (1966) (hereinafter von respondents belatedly assert a "single enterprise" the- in the united states. petitioners are not registered to do business in jurisdiction over it, petitioners are not registered to do was manufactured and sold abroad, north carolina courts petitioners moved to dismiss the claims against them all-purpose (general) jurisdiction. flow of a manufac- & palmer, exorbitant jurisdiction, 58 me. l. rev. 474, 492495 (2006) entities. see brief for respondents 4450. in effect, boat and horse trailers. petitioners state, and respondents wein v. kaiser stuhl wine distributors pty. ltd., 647 f. 2d 14 goodyear dunlop tires operations, s. a. was made, is hardly a strange location for a facility that primarily ------------ the heading courts today use to encompass these two certiorari did respondents urge disregard of petitioners' discrete defendant in perkins, whose sole wartime business activ- ies and treatment of all goodyear entities as a "unitary at 414, n. 9. since international shoe, this court's decisions have act or omission outside the [forum]" when, in addition, the defendant facturer or seller of goods would be amenable to suit, on recognized required a "higher threshold" showing: a de- in the manufacturers' primary markets.1 purpose jurisdiction, and specific or case-linked jurisdic- opinion of the court whether an out-of-state corporate defendant's in-state n. 11 (1984) (ohio's exercise of general jurisdiction was tinuous and systematic general business contacts" neces- opinion of the court claims relating to [their] introduction of . . . wine into cases, this court has inquired whether there was "some 2 such markings do not necessarily show that any of the tires were 7cite as: 564 u. s. ____ (2011) a court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign note: where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is 2d, at 393. indeed, the very tire involved in the accident, that a state may authorize its courts to exercise personal cluding through use of dot markings, as evidence that the products 6 goodyear dunlop tires operations, s. a. ity was conducted in ohio, petitioners are in no sense at ject to review for compatibility with the fourteenth ohio, where the company's affairs were overseen during world war north carolina lacked adjudicatory authority over them. tire failure, they named as defendants goodyear usa, an ohio corpo- corporation is fairly regarded as at home. see brilmayer specific jurisdiction. in only two decisions postdating international carolina. 286, 297; but ties serving to bolster the exercise of specific jurisdic- 3cite as: 564 u. s. ____ (2011) von mehren & trautman 11441163. adjudicatory au- france), petitioners here, were named as defendants. exercise of general jurisdiction). unrelated to those contacts: perkins v. benguet consol. sengers on the bus were young soccer players from north 418. we see no reason to differentiate from the ties to opinion of the court dismiss the claims against them for want of personal jurisdiction. limited wartime activities of the company." perkins, 342 taiwanese company's cross-complaint); id., at 109 (opinion dants to the state's coercive power, and is therefore sub- merce"; that connection, the court of appeals believed, we granted certiorari to decide whether the general classified cases involving out-of-state corporate defendants. first, jurisdiction and the stream of commerce, 7 rev. litiga- the suit. petitioners manufacture tires primarily for sale residence in the forum may strengthen the case for the exercise of cient to render a corporation answerable in that state and the underlying controversy," principally, activity or an on april 18, 2004, a bus destined for charles de gaulle texas were insufficient to subject it to texas court's gen- and three of its subsidiaries, organized and operating, ii continuous and systematic general business contacts . . . found to ex- general explained, the united states encourages other countries to court noted, made "no attempt to keep these tires from under which the french nationality of the plaintiff is a sufficient petitioners' tires in north carolina, respondents maintained, demon- 10 goodyear dunlop tires operations, s. a. the north carolina supreme court denied discretionary 466 u. s., at 414, n. 8. to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction over peti- respectively, in turkey, france, and luxembourg. good- gave rise to the episode-in-suit. id., at 317. it also observed that the ginsburg, j., delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. the north carolina court of appeals so acknowledged. washington, 326 u. s. 310, provides that state courts may exercise u. s., at 447448. although the claim-in-suit did not arise 4 the court instead relied on n. c. gen. stat. ann. 175.4(1)(d), see sets the outer boundaries of a state tribunal's authority to measured against helicopteros and perkins, north carolina is not preliminary print of the united states reports. readers are requested to e.g., world-wide volkswagen corp. v. woodson, 444 u. s. long-arm statutes authorize courts to exercise specific jurisdiction known as "specific jurisdiction." helicopteros nacionales de colom- when a helicopter owned by a colombian corporation crashed in peru elaborated primarily on circumstances that warrant the exercise of michigan franchisees, where agreement contemplated on- the forum state], even if occurring at regular intervals, year usa affiliates. the trial court denied petitioners' motion to principal, if temporary, place of business"). tion unquestionably could be asserted where the corpora- tion 239, 262268 (1988) (discussing origins and evolution products in the state; and do not solicit business in the state or sell et al., petitioners v. edgar d. brown, harm inside the forum. see generally dayton, personal [forum]").


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise