Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 11, 2011
Decided June 27, 2011
Full case name Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A., et al., Petitioners v. Edgar D. Brown, et ux., Co-Administrators of the Estate of Julian David Brown, et al.
Docket nos. 10-76
Citations 564 U.S. ___ (more)
Prior history denial of motion to dismiss affirmed sub nom. Brown v. Meter, 199 N.C. App. 50, 681 S. E. 2d 382 (2009); review devied, 364 N.C. 128, 695 S.E.2d 756 (2010); certiorari granted, 561 U. S. ___ (2010)
Argument Oral argument
Holding
The connection between Goodyear and its subsidiaries with the state of North Carolina was not strong enough to establish jurisdiction over the companies.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Ginsburg, joined by unanimous

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the connection between Goodyear and its subsidiaries with the state of North Carolina was not strong enough to establish general personal jurisdiction over the companies.[1] Two 13-year old boys from North Carolina died as a result of a bus accident outside of Paris.[2] The parents of the boys believed the accident was due to a defective tire manufactured by a foreign subsidiary of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and sued for damages in a North Carolina state court.[3] The foreign subsidiaries asserted that the North Carolina courts lacked jurisdiction over them and moved to dismiss. The North Carolina trial court denied the motion and the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed.[4] The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the foreign subsidiaries lacked a significant connection to North Carolina to warrant general personal jurisdiction.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown United States Supreme Court, Opinion p. 3, "A connection so limited between the forum and the foreign corporation, we hold, is an inadequate basis for the exercise of general jurisdiction. Such a connection does not establish the “continuous and systematic” affiliation necessary to empower North Carolina courts to entertain claims unrelated to the foreign corporation’s contacts with the State."
  2. ^ Brown v. Meter North Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion p. 3, "Matthew Helms and Julian Brown (Decedents), two thirteen-year old soccer players who resided in North Carolina, died from injuries suffered in a bus wreck on 18 April 2004 outside Paris, France. Decedents were traveling to Charles de Gaulle Airport in preparation for returning to North Carolina at the time of the accident."
  3. ^ Brown v. Meter North Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion p. 3, "Plaintiffs sought relief from a series of Goodyear affiliates, including Goodyear France, Goodyear Luxembourg, and Goodyear Turkey on a number of theories arising from an alleged negligent “design, construction, testing, and inspection” of and a failure to warn about alleged latent defects in the Goodyear Regional tire in question."
  4. ^ Brown v. Meter North Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion p. 4, "On 1 May 2008, the trial court entered an order denying Defendants’ dismissal motions." Opinion, p. 29, "The trial court did not err in exercising general jurisdiction over Defendants and denying their dismissal motion... the trial court’s order should be, and hereby is, affirmed."

External links[edit]