2010

Rasmussen v. Nissan

Key Issue

Whether the state has the authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based on the acts of its subsidiaries. 

OFII Brief

Court’s Ruling

Outcome decided on July 1, 2011
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the activities of the “subsidiary corporation are insufficient to subject its nonresident parent corporation to general personal jurisdiction.” Ultimately, the “substantial and not isolated activities” of Nissan North America are insufficient cause for Rasmussen to sue Nissan Japan. The Appeals Court’s ruling was upheld. 

 

McIntyre Machinery v. Robert Nicastro

Key Issue
Whether the state has the authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in product liability cases.  McIntyre appealed New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling.

OFII Brief

Court’s Ruling

Outcome decided on June 27, 2011
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the state could not exercise personal jurisdiction against a foreign manufacturer based on the mere fact that its products ended up in a forum state through the actions of an independent distributor.  Mere knowledge that a product “might” end up reaching a state is insufficient cause to exercise personal jurisdiction. Thus, the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling was reversed. 

 

Goodyear Luxembourg Tires v. Edgar D. Brown

Key Issue
Whether the state has the authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in product liability cases.  Goodyear appealed North Carolina’s Court of Appeals ruling.

OFII Brief

Court’s Ruling

Outcome decided on June 27, 2011
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Goodyear's foreign subsidiaries were not amenable to suit in North Carolina on claims that were unrelated to any activity by them in that state. Thus, the ruling by the North Carolina’s Court of Appeals was reversed.

 

Morrison v. National Australia Bank

Key Issue
Whether U.S. securities law can be applied extraterritorially.

OFII Brief

Court’s Ruling

Outcome decided on June 24, 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court held that U.S. law against securities fraud does not apply to investment deals that occur outside the country, even if they have a domestic impact or effect.