Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown
2011 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (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]
Quick Facts Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, Argued January 11, 2011 Decided June 27, 2011 ...
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown | |
---|---|
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 no. | 10-76 |
Citations | 564 U.S. 915 (more) 131 S. Ct. 2846; 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | denial of motion to dismiss affirmed sub nom. Brown v. Meter, 199 N.C. App. 50, 681 S.E.2d 382 (2009); review denied, 364 N.C. 128, 695 S.E.2d 756 (2010); cert. granted, 561 U.S. 1058 (2010). |
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 opinion | |
Majority | Ginsburg, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
Close