Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.

526 U.S. 574, 119 S.Ct. 1563 (1999)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...

Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.

United States Supreme Court

526 U.S. 574, 119 S.Ct. 1563 (1999)

Facts

In 1976, Marathon Oil Co. and Marathon International Oil Co. acquired Marathon Petroleum Company Norway (MPCN) and Marathon Petroleum Norge (Norge). After the acquisition, Norge assigned its license to produce gas in the Heimdal Field to MPCN. In 1981, MPCN agreed to sell 70% of its share of the Heimdal gas production to Ruhrgas AG (defendant). Marathon Oil Co., Marathon International Oil Co., and Norge (collectively, Marathon) (plaintiffs) sued Ruhrgas in Texas state court. Ruhrgas removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently, Ruhrgas made a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, while Marathon moved to remand the case to the state court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction on the grounds that Ruhrgas lacked sufficient contacts with Texas. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction should have been decided before personal jurisdiction. It then rejected Ruhrgas’ arguments in support of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, vacated the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case to the state court. On its own motion, the Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacating the panel decision. The en banc court held that, in removed cases, district courts must decide issues of subject-matter jurisdiction first, reaching issues of personal jurisdiction only after subject-matter jurisdiction is found to exist. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between the circuits.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, 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 541,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 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 541,000 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
  • 26,900 briefs - keyed to 983 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