Scanapico v. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
439 F.2d 25 (1970)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Mary Scanapico (plaintiff) was a New York resident who was injured while riding a train from Florida to New York. Scanapico purchased her train ticket in Florida. Train tickets for the New York to Florida route were regularly sold in New York and were heavily advertised in New York. At the time of Scanapico’s injury, the train was in Virginia on track owned by the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad (RF&P) (defendant) and RF&P’s crew was operating the train. RF&P’s track ran from Richmond, Virginia, to Washington, D.C. However, for many years before Scanapico’s injury, trains between New York and Florida regularly travelled on RF&P’s track and were operated by RF&P crews. After Scanapico sued RF&P in federal court in New York, RF&P moved to dismiss, arguing that (1) it had insufficient contacts with New York and thus New York’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over it would violate the Constitution’s Due Process Clause and (2) subjecting it to suit in New York would unduly burden interstate commerce in violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The district court denied RF&P’s motion to quash. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. RF&P successfully petitioned for rehearing en banc.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Friendly, J.)
Concurrence (Hays, J.)
Concurrence (Kaufman, J.)
Dissent (Lumbard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
