Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court
United States Supreme Court
480 U.S. 102, 107 S. Ct. 1026, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1987)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Gary Zurcher (plaintiff) was injured and his wife, Ruth Moreno, was killed when they crashed their motorcycle due to a tire blowout. Zurcher filed a products-liability suit over the defective tire against Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd. (Cheng Shin) in California state court. Cheng Shin filed a cross-complaint for indemnification from Asahi Metal Industry Co. (Asahi) (defendant). All other claims were dismissed or settled. Asahi moved to quash the summons for lack of jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Asahi manufactured valve assemblies in Japan. Cheng Shin bought over 100,000 assemblies annually from Asahi. The sales to Cheng Shin occurred in Taiwan. Cheng Shin incorporated the assemblies into its tires, which it sold worldwide. California accounted for 20 percent of Cheng Shin’s sales in the United States. Cheng Shin alleged that it informed Asahi of its US tire sales. Still, Asahi never contemplated that third-party transactions would subject it to lawsuits in California. The trial court held that jurisdiction was appropriate because it was not unreasonable to hold an international business accountable in the markets where it did business. The appellate court reversed and issued a peremptory writ ordering the trial court to quash the summons. The California Supreme Court reversed and invalidated the writ. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
Concurrence (Brennan, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.