- Burger King v. Rudzewicz
Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Burger King v. Rudzewicz
ArgueDate=January 28
ArgueYear=1985
DecideDate=May 20
DecideYear=1985
FullName=Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
USVol=471
USPage=462
Citation=105 S. Ct. 2174; 85 L. Ed. 2d 528; 53 U.S.L.W. 4541
Prior=Judgment for Burger King (S.D. Fla.); rev'd, [http://openjurist.org/724/f2d/1505/burger-king-corporation-v-macshara 724 F.2d 1505] (11th Cir.); reh'g "en banc " denied, [http://openjurist.org/729/f2d/1468/burger-king-corporation-v-macshara-rudzewicz 729 F.2d 1468] ; consideration ofjurisdiction postponed to hearing of merits, 469 U.S. 814 (1984)
Subsequent=None
Holding=The District Court's exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to Florida's long-arm statute did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
SCOTUS=1981-1986
Majority=Brennan
JoinMajority=Burger, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, O'Connor
Concurrence=
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=Stevens
JoinDissent=White
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
NotParticipating=Powell
LawsApplied="Burger King v. Rudzewicz", 471 U.S. 462 (
1985 ) [ [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=471&page=462 471 U.S. 462] Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.] , is a notable case inUnited States civil procedure that came before theSupreme Court of the United States .Facts
Two Michigan residents (John Rudzewicz and Brian MacShara, the defendants) entered into an agreement with
Burger King to run a franchise. The two defendants would pay their franchise fees and royalties to Burger King'sFlorida headquarters. One of the defendants also attended training courses at regional Burger King University locations and in the Florida headquarters on how to run a Burger King franchise. The defendants were unable to make their monthly payments to Burger King, prompting the Florida-based corporation to file a lawsuit in Florida forbreach of contract and tortious infringement of Burger King's trademarks and servicemarks through the defendants' unauthorized operation as a Burger King restaurant after the defendants received notice to vacate the premises.Procedure
The District Court held that Florida had jurisdiction because of a statute that allowed the state to extend jurisdiction to anyone breaching a contract within the state. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court's decision finding that even though the defendants hadminimum contacts with Florida, to exercise jurisdiction over the defendants would be fundamentally unfair and thus violate thedue process clause of theFourteenth Amendment . Burger King then appealed to the Supreme Court.Holding
The Supreme Court concluded that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the protections of the forum state (Florida) and were, therefore, subject to jurisdiction there. The Court reasoned that the defendants had a "substantial and continuing" relationship with Burger King in Florida and that due process would not be violated because the defendants should have reasonably anticipated being summoned into court in Florida for breach of contract.
Dissent
In dissent, Justice
John Paul Stevens argued that Rudzewicz had never been to Florida and had no business established in Florida. Rudzewicz could not have anticipated being summoned into court in Florida, and it violates the due process clause to require a small businessman in Michigan to have to make an appearance in a court in Florida to present his defense.ee also
*
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 471 References
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.