Page 1 of 1
McINTYRE v. NICASTRO (CivPro PJ Stream of Commerce)
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:53 pm
by brickman
Did anyone else do this case? Kennedy, Breyer, & Ginsburg opinion are killing me.
Would appreciate a discussion.
Re: McINTYRE v. NICASTRO (CivPro PJ Stream of Commerce)
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:11 pm
by JusticeHarlan
Use the search function. You get stuff like
this.
Re: McINTYRE v. NICASTRO (CivPro PJ Stream of Commerce)
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:13 pm
by ph14
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.
Re: McINTYRE v. NICASTRO (CivPro PJ Stream of Commerce)
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:19 pm
by 071816
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.