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

Somportex Limited v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corporation

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
453 F.2d 435 (1972)


Facts

Somportex Limited (Somportex) (plaintiff) sued Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corporation (Philadelphia) (defendant) in an English court for breach of contract. Philadelphia was served in Pennsylvania under the English long-arm statute. Philadelphia’s attorney appeared before the English court to challenge service of process on Philadelphia. When Philadelphia attempted to withdraw its appearance to challenge service, the court deemed the attorney’s appearance to have been a general appearance, not a special appearance, and held that Philadelphia had therefore waived its right to challenge the jurisdiction of the English court. The court gave Philadelphia additional time to present evidence on the issue of service of process under the long-arm statute. Philadelphia decided to take no action, and a default judgment was entered in Somportex’s favor. Somportex filed to enforce the judgment in federal district court in Pennsylvania. Somportex’s motion was granted. Philadelphia appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Philadelphia argued that the English court’s judgment should not be recognized in the United States for multiple reasons. First, Philadelphia argued that the English court did not conduct a factual or legal analysis of whether an English court had jurisdiction. Next, Philadelphia asserted that English laws relating to waiving jurisdiction and recovering compensatory damages were inconsistent with United States law. Finally, Philadelphia asserted that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the English court did not comport with due process.

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.

Issue

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 (Aldisert, 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.

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 222,000 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.