process agent

In 1974, Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., agreed with Bendix Autolite Corporation to deliver and install a boiler system at a Bendix facility in Fostoria, Ohio. Bendix is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio, while Midwesco is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. Bendix became dissatisfied with the work, claiming that the boiler system had been installed improperly and that it was insufficient to produce the quantity of steam specified in the contract. This diversity action was filed against Midwesco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in 1980. When Midwesco asserted the Ohio statute of limitations as a defense, Bendix responded that the statutory period had not elapsed because under Ohio law the running of the time is suspended, or tolled, for claims against entities that are not within the State and have not designated an agent for service of process. Midwesco replied that this tolling provision violated both the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the action, finding that the Ohio tolling statute constituted an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the Ohio statute constituted discrimination in violation of the Commerce Clause because it required a foreign corporation to choose between exposing itself to personal jurisdiction in state courts by complying with the tolling statute, or, by refusing to comply, to remain liable in perpetuity for all lawsuits containing state causes of action filed against it in the State. Bendix appealed, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the Ohio tolling statute in 1987.

In 1976, Harry and Kay Robinson, who resided in New York, purchased a new Audi automobile from Seaway Volkswagen, Inc., a retail dealer located in Massena, New York. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., a New York corporation, served as the regional distributor for Audi vehicles to retail dealers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut under a contract with Volkswagen of America, Inc., the importer. The manufacturer of the vehicle was Audi NSU Auto Union Aktiengesellschaft, a German corporation. The following year, the Robinson family departed New York for a new residence in Arizona. While driving through Oklahoma, another car struck their Audi from the rear, resulting in a fire that caused severe burns to Kay Robinson and her two children. The Robinsons subsequently filed a products liability action in the District Court for Creek County, Oklahoma, alleging that defects in the design and placement of the Audi's gas tank and fuel system caused their injuries. The defendants included the manufacturer Audi, the importer Volkswagen, the distributor World-Wide, and the retailer Seaway. World-Wide and Seaway entered special appearances in the Oklahoma trial court, asserting that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. After the trial court denied their jurisdictional challenge, they petitioned the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial judge, Charles S. Woodson, from exercising jurisdiction. The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the writ, concluding that jurisdiction was proper under the state's long-arm statute. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the constitutional question presented by the exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants.

Respondent Shirley Jones, a California resident who lives and works in the state, brought suit in California Superior Court against the National Enquirer, its local distributing company, and petitioners Calder and South for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The Enquirer is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Florida that publishes a national weekly newspaper with a total circulation of over 5 million copies, of which approximately 600,000 are sold in California. Petitioner South is a Florida resident. Petitioner Calder is also a Florida resident. South, a reporter for the Enquirer, wrote the first draft of the challenged article that appeared in the October 9, 1979 issue, conducted most of his research in Florida while making phone calls to sources in California, and called Jones's home shortly before publication to read a draft to her husband. Calder, president and editor of the Enquirer, reviewed and approved the initial evaluation of the article's subject, edited it in final form, and declined to print a retraction requested by Jones. The article concerned the California activities of Jones, an entertainer whose television career was centered in California, and it was drawn from California sources. Jones's husband later filed a voluntary dismissal of his complaint. Petitioners were served with process by mail in Florida and entered special appearances to move to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Superior Court granted the motion, reasoning that although petitioners' actions in Florida ordinarily would support jurisdiction in California, First Amendment concerns required special solicitude and that Jones's rights could be fully satisfied in her suit against the publisher alone. The California Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that petitioners intended to and did cause tortious injury to Jones in California and that the actions causing those effects, though performed outside the state, provided a valid basis for jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal rejected the Superior Court's view that First Amendment considerations must be weighed against jurisdiction and noted that neither petitioner's contacts with California would support jurisdiction over an unrelated cause of action. The Supreme Court of California denied a timely petition for hearing. On petitioners' appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, probable jurisdiction was postponed and the jurisdictional statement was later treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted.

In April 2004, a bus carrying young soccer players from North Carolina overturned on a road outside Paris, France, killing two 13-year-old boys, Julian Brown and Matthew Helms. Their parents, acting as administrators of the boys' estates, filed a wrongful-death suit in the Superior Court of Onslow County, North Carolina, alleging negligence in the design, construction, testing, and inspection of a tire that failed during the trip. The defendants were The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation, and three of its indirect subsidiaries incorporated and operating in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France. Goodyear USA maintained plants in North Carolina and did not contest personal jurisdiction, but the foreign subsidiaries moved to dismiss, asserting that North Carolina lacked authority over them. The foreign subsidiaries manufactured tires primarily for European and Asian markets, with tires differing in size and construction from those sold in the United States. They maintained no place of business, employees, or bank accounts in North Carolina, did not design, manufacture, advertise, or sell products there, and the specific Goodyear Regional RHS tire involved in the accident was never distributed in the state, although a small percentage of other tires they produced reached North Carolina through other Goodyear affiliates. The trial court denied the subsidiaries' motion to dismiss. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling after finding that the subsidiaries' placement of tires into the stream of commerce supported the exercise of general jurisdiction. The North Carolina Supreme Court denied discretionary review. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In 2001, the President issued an executive order creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within the Executive Office of the President. By separate executive orders, the President also created Executive Department Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within several federal agencies and departments. No congressional legislation specifically authorized the creation of the White House Office or the Executive Department Centers. Rather, they were created entirely within the executive branch by Presidential executive order. Nor has Congress enacted any law specifically appropriating money for these entities’ activities. Instead, their activities are funded through general Executive Branch appropriations. Respondents are Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., a nonstock corporation opposed to government endorsement of religion, and three of its members. Respondents brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the directors of the White House Office and the agency centers. The complaint alleged that the petitioners violated the Establishment Clause by organizing national and regional conferences at which faith-based organizations were singled out as particularly worthy of federal funding. The only asserted basis for standing was that the individual respondents are federal taxpayers opposed to the use of congressional taxpayer appropriations to advance and promote religion. The District Court dismissed the claims for lack of standing on November 15, 2004. A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed in 2006, and the Court of Appeals denied rehearing en banc by a vote of seven to four. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2006.