McINTYRE v. NICASTRO (CivPro PJ Stream of Commerce)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

McINTYRE v. NICASTRO (CivPro PJ Stream of Commerce)

Postby brickman » Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:53 pm

Did anyone else do this case? Kennedy, Breyer, & Ginsburg opinion are killing me.

Would appreciate a discussion.

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: McINTYRE v. NICASTRO (CivPro PJ Stream of Commerce)

Postby JusticeHarlan » Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:11 pm

Use the search function. You get stuff like this.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: McINTYRE v. NICASTRO (CivPro PJ Stream of Commerce)

Postby ph14 » Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:13 pm

brickman wrote:Did anyone else do this case? Kennedy, Breyer, & Ginsburg opinion are killing me.

Would appreciate a discussion.


I did as well, it seems kind of confusing. McIntyre plurality said that no PJ because they didn't avail themselves of NJ specifically but just of the US as a whole? So they can't be sued in the United States basically and have to be sued where they came from? And the dissent disagrees and said they did avail themselves of NJ.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: McINTYRE v. NICASTRO (CivPro PJ Stream of Commerce)

Postby 071816 » Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:19 pm

NiCastro didn't really add anything definitive to the Asahi mess because of the pluralities in both cases.

The way I understood the various NiCastro opinions:

No Personal Jurisdiction
-Kennedy plurality: contacts with the entire U.S. are not enough to confer personal jurisdiction. D was not "seeking to serve a given state’s market."
-Breyer concurrence: a single sale in a given state is not enough to confer PJ in that state. Hints at how P could have presented evidence to show that D was targeting NJ, but did not. Declines to adopt a broad "submission" rule.

Personal Jurisdiction
-Ginsburg dissent: emphasizes that due process, not state sovereignty, is at issue when determining PJ. Since national contacts are increasingly common, PJ over the defendant was proper here.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests