J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4800 (June 27, 2011)

LexisNexis Overview: In a consumer's products-liability case, only purposeful availment in New Jersey would have made personal jurisdiction consistent with Due Process, and since a British manufacturer did not have a single contact with New Jersey short of the product in question ending up there, the finding of jurisdiction was reversed.

Counsel: Arthur F. Fergenson argued the cause for petitioner.

Alexander W. Ross, Jr. argued the cause for respondent.

Judges: KENNEDY, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA  and THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which ALITO, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR  and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro

Non-subscribers can view the free, unenhanced version of J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro on lexisONE's Free Case Law