Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

1,000+ Citing cases

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 6,069 times   239 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the test for general personal jurisdiction "is whether that corporation's 'affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.'" (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011))

    That rigidly territorial focus eventually yielded to a less wooden understanding, exemplified by the Court's pathmarking decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95. International Shoe presaged the recognition of two personal jurisdiction categories: One category, today called “specific jurisdiction,” see Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U. S. 915, 923-924, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796, encompasses cases in which the suit “arise[s] out of or relate[s] to the defendant's contacts with the forum,” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, 466 U. S. 408, 414, n. 8, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404. International Shoe distinguished exercises of specific, case-based jurisdiction from a category today known as “general jurisdiction,” exercisable when a foreign corporation's “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, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95.

  2. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.

    137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017)   Cited 2,270 times   135 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "[i]n order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum [s]tate’ " (quoting Goodyear , 564 U.S. at 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846 )

    See, e.g.,Daimler, supra, at –––– – ––––, 134 S.Ct., at 753–757 ; World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) ; International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316–317, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) ; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878). Because "[a] state court's assertion of jurisdiction exposes defendants to the State's coercive power," it is "subject to review for compatibility with the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause," Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 918, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011), which "limits the power of a state court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant," World–Wide Volkswagen, supra, at 291, 100 S.Ct. 559. The primary focus of our personal jurisdiction inquiry is the defendant's relationship to the forum State. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. ––––, –––– – ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121–1123, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) ; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 806–807, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985).

  3. Abelesz v. OTP Bank

    692 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 143 times
    Relying on Goodyear , 564 U.S. 915, 131 S.Ct. 2846

    General jurisdiction over a defendant, which means that the defendant can be required to answer any claim that arose anywhere in the world, requires that the defendant be “essentially at home” in the forum. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011). The allegations against MKB and OTP do not come close to meeting that standard, and neither the plaintiffs nor the district court have offered even a colorable argument for satisfying that standard.

  4. Eon Corp. v. At & T Mobility, LLC

    879 F. Supp. 2d 194 (D.P.R. 2012)   Cited 6 times
    Referring to Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S. Ct. 559, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490

    The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2853, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011); World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). Pursuant to Federal Circuit law, the Court's jurisdictional reach is further limited by the forum's long-arm statute.

  5. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

    141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021)   Cited 1,412 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that general jurisdiction exists only in states where defendant is "'essentially at home,'" which for individuals means their "place of domicile" and for corporations typically means their "place of incorporation and principal place of business" (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011))

    That focus led to our recognizing two kinds of personal jurisdiction: general (sometimes called all-purpose) jurisdiction and specific (sometimes called case-linked) jurisdiction. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown , 564 U.S. 915, 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011). A state court may exercise general jurisdiction only when a defendant is "essentially at home" in the State. Ibid.

  6. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell

    137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017)   Cited 606 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Relying on Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 760, and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924

    ’ " 326 U.S., at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154. Elaborating on this guide, we have distinguished between specific or case-linked jurisdiction and general or all-purpose jurisdiction. See, e.g.,Daimler, 571 U.S., at ––––, 134 S.Ct., at 754 ; Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011) ; Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, nn. 8, 9, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Because neither Nelson nor Tyrrell alleges any injury from work in or related to Montana, only the propriety of general jurisdiction is at issue here.

  7. Hegna v. Smitty's Supply, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-3613 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 13, 2017)   Cited 14 times
    Explaining that personal jurisdiction can be either specific or general (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011))

    The Supreme Court has explained that "[a] court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State." Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011) (citing Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 317).

  8. FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund, L.P. v. CitiBank, N.A.

    16 Civ. 5263 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2017)   Cited 16 times
    Noting that it appears that the Second Circuit was referring to New York Business Corporation Law § 1301 in Brown

    The exercise of specific jurisdiction thus "depends on in-state activity that 'gave rise to the episode-in-suit.'" Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Org., 835 F.3d 317, 331 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 923 (2011)). However, the FAC contains no plausible allegations that any conduct related to the conspiracy to manipulate SIBOR and SOR occurred within the United States.

  9. Pruitt v. AAA Interstate Transp.

    358 So. 3d 1144 (Ala. 2022)   Cited 1 times
    Recognizing that a defendant is subject to general personal jurisdiction only in states where it is "essentially at home" and explaining that, for a corporate defendant, that typically means only the state in which the defendant is incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011), and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 139 & n.19)

    A defendant is subject to general jurisdiction only in states where it is "`essentially at home.'" Id. (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011)). For a corporate defendant, that typically means only the state in which the defendant is incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business, id., barring the "exceptional case" in which the corporation's contacts with another state "`are so "continuous and systematic"'" that it is "`essentially at home'" in that state as well.

  10. Book v. Voma Tire Corp.

    860 N.W.2d 576 (Iowa 2015)   Cited 35 times
    Finding jurisdiction proper over a Chinese manufacturer that sold thousands of tires in Iowa through a distributor, and noting that the foreign defendant "at least indirectly served the [state's] market through [its distributor] ‘with the expectation that [its tires] would be purchased by consumers in the forum State’ " (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 298, 100 S.Ct. 559 ) (alterations in original)

    “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment sets the outer boundaries of a state tribunal's authority to proceed against a defendant.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ––––, ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2853, 180 L.Ed.2d 796, 805 (2011). “The Due Process Clause protects an individual's right to be deprived of life, liberty, or property only by the exercise of lawful power.”