Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer
| Decision Date | 17 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-369.,19-369. |
| Citation | 205 L.Ed.2d 519,140 S.Ct. 916 (Mem) |
| Parties | FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Adam BANDEMER. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana and to the Supreme Court of Minnesota granted.The case is consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
8 cases
-
Maseng v. Lenox Corp.
...same even if the defendant had no forum contacts." Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth District Court , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 917, –––, 205 L.Ed.2d 519 (2020), consolidated with
Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 916, 205 L.Ed.2d 519 (2020). This is arguably the issue presented here. Lenox's only connection to the suit is through the licensing agreement, which it executed in Pennsylvania. Lenox contends, and this contention is discussed in additional... -
Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court
...will help us face these tangles and sort out a responsible way to address the challenges posed by our changing economy in light of the Constitution's text and the lessons of history.* Together with No. 19–369,
Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 916, 205 L.Ed.2d 519, on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Seestill had the needed connection to Bandemer's allegations that a defective Crown Victoria caused in-state injury. See id., at 754.We granted certiorari to consider if Ford is subject to jurisdiction in these cases. 589 U. S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 917, 205 L.Ed.2d 519 (2020). We hold that it is.IIA The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause limits a state court's power to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant. The canonical decision in this area remains International Shoe... -
Pawa Box Sales Grp. v. Roofer Elecs. Tech. (Shanwei) Co.
...availment of the forum state empowers this Court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Roofer. See generally Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1078 (10th Cir. 2008);
Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. 8th Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. —, 140 S. Ct. 917, 205 L.Ed.2d 519 (2020). The Court notes that Roofer solicited contracts to and did in fact manufacture goods for PawaBox, a resident of the forum state, and that PawaBox's injuries arose because of how Roofer... -
Fidrych v. Marriott Int'l, Inc.
...forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts."), consolidated with
Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer , S. Ct. Docket No. 19-369, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 916, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2020 WL 254152 (2020).5 The internet we know today is very different from the internet of 1997, when Zippo was decided. According to Zippo , in 1997 the internet was used "by over 30 million individuals,...
Get Started for Free