Logourl black
From our private database of 13,000+ case briefs...

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court

United States Supreme Court
480 U.S. 102 (1987)

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court

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 product 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. 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 does business. The appellate court reversed and issued a peremptory writ ordering the trial court to quash the summons. The Supreme Court of the State of California reversed and invalidated the writ. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence (Brennan, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence (Stevens, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 128,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,000 briefs, keyed to 176 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.