Document Type
Working Paper
Publication Date
5-3-2012
SSRN Discipline
Legal Scholarship Network; Social Insurance Research Network; Litigation, Procedure & Dispute Resolution eJournals; Law & Society eJournals; LSN Subject Matter eJournals; Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy eJournals; Humanities Network
Abstract
It was a long time coming The Supreme Courts decisions last Term in J McIntyre Machinery Ltd v Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations SA v Brown ended a twodecade highcourt hiatus from the subject of personal jurisdiction In McIntyre the more controversial of the two the Court concludes that New Jersey state courts lacked jurisdiction over a British manufacturer in a suit by a New Jersey plaintiff who was injured in New Jersey by a machine purchased by his New Jersey employer McIntyre lacks a majority opinion however Instead we have a fourJustice plurality authored by Justice Kennedy a threeJustice dissent authored by Justice Ginsburg and a scaletipping concurrence written by Justice Breyer and joined by Justice Alito This article for the South Carolina Law Reviews symposium on McIntyre and Goodyear examines the three McIntyre opinions It argues that McIntyre should not be read to impose significant new restraints on jurisdiction Although there are aspects of Justice Kennedys plurality that suggest a more restrictive approach Justice Breyers concurrence explicitly rejects Justice Kennedys reasoning Justice Breyer does agree that jurisdiction was not proper in McIntyre but that conclusion is premised on a very narrow understanding of the factual record Correctly understood Justice Breyers approach would allow jurisdiction in a similar case even one where only a single sale is ultimately made to an instate purchaser provided the record is slightly more developed on the presence of potential customers in the forum state In terms of the overarching legal principles Justice Breyers concurrence has more in common with Justice Ginsburgs dissent than Justice Kennedys plurality
Recommended Citation
Adam Steinman,
The Lay of the Land: Examining the Three Opinions in J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro,
(2012).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_working_papers/690