Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
United States Supreme Court
471 U.S. 462 (1985)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Brian MacShara and John Rudzewicz (defendants) jointly applied for a Burger King franchise in Detroit. MacShara and Rudzewicz negotiated the deal with the Michigan district office and the Miami headquarters of Burger King Corp. (plaintiff). The two men were granted a franchise, and MacShara attended a management course in Miami on how to run a Burger King. Rudzewicz purchased $165,000 in restaurant equipment from Burger King's corporate division in Miami. Under the franchise agreement, MacShara and Rudzewicz were to remit franchise fees and royalties to Burger King Corp. in Miami. MacShara and Rudzewicz were unable to make these payments due to low finances. Burger King Corp. sued MacShara and Rudzewicz for breach of contract in federal district court in Florida. Burger King claimed that federal court was appropriate under diversity and trademark jurisdiction. MacShara and Rudzewicz claimed that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over them. The court rejected their objection and awarded Burger King damages and injunctive relief. The court of appeals reversed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
