Hertz Corporation v. Friend
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 10, 2009
|Feb 23, 2010||9-0||Breyer||OT 2009|
Holding: Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction to hear suits alleging solely violation of state law if the parties to the lawsuit are citizens of different states. A corporation is considered to be a citizen of the state where it has its principal place of business. In this case, the Court defined that term to mean the state in which the company's high level officers control and coordinate its activities, which will usually be its corporate headquarters.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer on February 23, 2010.
- Identifying corporate "nerve centers" (Anna Christensen)
- The "Headquarters Test" or a Multifactor Approach? (Anna Christensen)
- Which State is a Nationwide Corporationâ€™s Principal Place of Business? (Anna Christensen)
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner the Hertz Corporation
- Brief for Respondent Melinda Friend, et al.
- Reply Brief for Petitioner the Hertz Corporation
- Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Business Roundtable, the American Trucking Associations, and the Truck Renting and Leasing Association in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center in Support of Respondent
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Brief amicus curiae of California Retailers Association (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al.(in support of petitioner)
- Petitioner's reply
- Supplemental brief of petitioner