Supreme Court of the United States (1987)
480 U.S. 102
FACTS
Zurcher gets in motorcycle accident, he is injured and wife killed. After product liability suit, Cheng Shin, manufacturer of the tube settles with Zurcher. Asahi manufactured the valve assembly and is the target of Cheng Shin’s indemnification (loss recovery) suit.
PROCEDURE
Appealing lower courts decision to establish personal jurisdiction over P. The Trial Ct. found that Asahi could be subjected to California’s jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals disagreed and ordered the Superior Court to quash service of summons on Asahi. The Supreme Court of California overruled the Court of Appeal finding that Asahi’s intentional act of putting its products into the “stream of commerce†with the awareness that they might wind up in California was enough to justify California’s exercise of jurisdiction. Asahi appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Is the mere awareness by Asahi that its product will be sold and delivered to the forum state establish minimum contacts that allow exercise of jurisdiction with fair play and substantial justice.
HELD
No. Minimum contacts may in fact be present, but because of the severe burden on the P and the lack of significant interest on the part of California and Cheng Shin, fair play is not satisfied.
analysis
Severe burden on P to travel all the way to California from Japan. California has little vested interest because neither party in the litigation is a California resident. Cheng Shin has no interest that requires the case to be litigated in California when the transaction took place in Taiwan.
FUTURE IMPORTANCE
This case lays down significant precedent concerning the propriety of hailing foreign defendants into to United States federal courts.
480 U.S. 102
FACTS
Zurcher gets in motorcycle accident, he is injured and wife killed. After product liability suit, Cheng Shin, manufacturer of the tube settles with Zurcher. Asahi manufactured the valve assembly and is the target of Cheng Shin’s indemnification (loss recovery) suit.
PROCEDURE
Appealing lower courts decision to establish personal jurisdiction over P. The Trial Ct. found that Asahi could be subjected to California’s jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals disagreed and ordered the Superior Court to quash service of summons on Asahi. The Supreme Court of California overruled the Court of Appeal finding that Asahi’s intentional act of putting its products into the “stream of commerce†with the awareness that they might wind up in California was enough to justify California’s exercise of jurisdiction. Asahi appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Is the mere awareness by Asahi that its product will be sold and delivered to the forum state establish minimum contacts that allow exercise of jurisdiction with fair play and substantial justice.
HELD
No. Minimum contacts may in fact be present, but because of the severe burden on the P and the lack of significant interest on the part of California and Cheng Shin, fair play is not satisfied.
analysis
Severe burden on P to travel all the way to California from Japan. California has little vested interest because neither party in the litigation is a California resident. Cheng Shin has no interest that requires the case to be litigated in California when the transaction took place in Taiwan.
FUTURE IMPORTANCE
This case lays down significant precedent concerning the propriety of hailing foreign defendants into to United States federal courts.