October Term 2016 · Docket 16-466

Can California courts hear claims from out-of-state patients?

Bristol-Myers Squibb disputes a state court ruling that allowed non-California patients to sue there.

Official caption
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.
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.
  2. — 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

    Bristol-Myers Squibb argues California lacks jurisdiction over out-of-state patients.

    California argues the company's local ties justify hearing these claims.

    Justice Sotomayor questioned the due process implications of pendent jurisdiction.

    Justice Ginsburg asked if manufacturing location creates nationwide jurisdiction.

    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

Bristol-Myers Squibb argues California lacks jurisdiction over out-of-state patients. California argues the company's local ties justify the suit.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 25, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Bristol-Myers Squibb wants the Supreme Court to dismiss the out-of-state claims.

California wants the Supreme Court to keep the out-of-state claims in state court.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Bristol-Myers Squibb argues due process bars jurisdiction over unrelated out-of-state injuries.

California argues the company's local activities create sufficient jurisdictional contacts.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if manufacturing location alone creates jurisdiction nationwide.

Justice Sotomayor asked how pendent jurisdiction avoids due process violations.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the geographic limits of state court power over national companies. It determines whether one state can adjudicate injuries occurring elsewhere. The outcome shapes the balance between local judicial efficiency and corporate due process rights.

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