Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

United States Supreme Court
471 U.S. 462 (1985)

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz


Brian MacShara and John Rudzewicz (defendants) jointly applied for a Burger King franchise in Detroit. MacShara and Rudzewicz negotiated the deal with Burger King Corp.’s (plaintiff) Michigan’s district office and the Miami headquarters. The two men were granted a franchise, and MacShara attended a management course on how to run a Burger King in Miami. Rudzewicz purchased $165,000 in restaurant equipment from Burger King 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 John Rudzewicz were unable to make these payments due to low finances. Burger King Corp. sued them 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

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.


The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, 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, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 218,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.