Goodyear v. Brown - Rational: They did not have general...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v, Brown 2011 U.S. Lexis 4801 (2011) Fact: Operative Facts: two 13 year olds died in a bus crash in France because of a defected tire made by a subsidiary of Goodyear. The plaintiffs tried to sue in North Carolina. They named Goodyear as a defendant. Not only the parent company in the U.S., but Goodyear in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France. Issue: Whether there was general jurisdiction for North Carolina to sue the other Goodyears Rule: To have general jurisdiction, there must either be a continuous and systematic contact, or the contact by it’s nature must be so substantial, and if the contact had a nexus with the state.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Rational: They did not have general jurisdiction over Goodyear, because measured against Helicopteros and Perkins, North Carolina is not a forum where Goodyear (the subsidiaries) had a continuous and systematic general business contacts. There was also no nexus from the suit to their activities. Holding: No Personal Jurisdiction because Goodyear subsidiaries did not have systematic and Continuous activities in the forum state (not enough). Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course CIV PRO 141 taught by Professor Daucher during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online