October Term 2010 · Docket 09-1343

Can a foreign manufacturer face suit in a state where it never targeted sales?

A British machinery maker and a New Jersey worker dispute whether the state court has power to hear a product liability claim.

Official caption
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Arthur Fergenson argued the manufacturer lacked New Jersey contacts.

    He stated the company did not direct activity toward New Jersey residents.

    He claimed the distributor acted without the manufacturer’s knowledge.

    Justice Kagan pressed the advocate on the scope of U. S. targeting. She asked if selling in the U. S. means selling in every state. She noted the United States consists of fifty distinct states. She questioned if the manufacturer wanted to sell in each one. Justice Scalia warned that broad jurisdiction could apply to any American manufacturer.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the limits of state court jurisdiction over foreign companies. The dispute centers on whether a manufacturer’s general intent to sell in the United States creates legal ties to every individual state.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 11, 2011.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The manufacturer wants the state court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

The worker wants the state court to keep the case and decide the injury claim.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The manufacturer argues it did not direct activity toward New Jersey residents.

The worker argues the manufacturer targeted the entire United States market.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if suability in one state implies suability in all states.

Justice Kagan asked if targeting the U.S. market means targeting all fifty states.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines where foreign companies can be sued. It shapes the balance between state power and international commerce. The outcome affects how businesses structure their sales strategies nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON