Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

600 U.S. 122 (2023)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

United States Supreme Court
600 U.S. 122 (2023)

Play video

Facts

Robert Mallory (plaintiff) worked as a mechanic for Norfolk Southern Railway Company (Norfolk) in Ohio and Virginia for almost 20 years. Mallory subsequently moved to Pennsylvania and back to Virginia. During that time, Mallory was diagnosed with cancer, which Mallory believed was caused by carcinogen exposure during his employment with Norfolk. Mallory sued Norfolk in Pennsylvania state court to recover damages. Mallory lived in Virginia when the lawsuit was filed. Norfolk moved to dismiss, asserting that the Pennsylvania court lacked personal jurisdiction over Norfolk because (1) Mallory lived in Virginia, (2) Mallory’s alleged carcinogen exposure had occurred in Ohio and Virginia, and (3) Norfolk was incorporated and headquartered in Virginia. Norfolk claimed that the Pennsylvania court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mallory countered that Norfolk had extensive railroad operations in Pennsylvania and had been registered to do business in Pennsylvania for over 20 years. A Pennsylvania statute provided that registered foreign corporations enjoyed the same benefits and were subject to the same restrictions as domestic corporations. Specifically, Pennsylvania courts could exercise general personal jurisdiction over registered foreign corporations. Thus, according to Mallory, by registering to do business in Pennsylvania, Norfolk had consented to the Pennsylvania court’s exercise of jurisdiction in Mallory’s action. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Pennsylvania statute requiring out-of-state companies seeking registration in Pennsylvania to consent to personal jurisdiction was unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gorsuch, J.)

Concurrence (Alito, J.)

Concurrence (Jackson, J.)

Dissent (Barrett, J.)

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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership