Citation network
Hertz Corp. Vs. Friend
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 23, 2010
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2009 Hertz Corp. V. FriendSearch
-
E.g., Felker v. TurpinSearch
-
not to deprive this Court of subsequent jurisdiction to review the case. See , e.g., Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. FlowersSearch
-
requires that the main, prominent, or most important place be chosen. Cf., e.g., Commissioner v. SolimanSearch
-
in the next-ranking State. Second, administrative simplicity is a major virtue in a jurisdictional statute. Sisson v. RubySearch
-
Appx. 690, vacated and remanded. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Hertz Corp. v. FriendSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Hertz Corp. V. FriendSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-1107 the Hertz Corporation, Petitioner V. MelindaSearch
-
See, e.g., Wisconsin Knife Works v. NationalSearch
-
Scot Typewriter Co. v. UnderwoodSearch
-
Friend v. HertzSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Tosco Corp. v. CommunitiesSearch
-
and Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. RussellvilleSearch
-
as implicitly modifying or limiting Supreme Court jurisdiction that another statute specifically grants. Felker v. TurpinSearch
-
not to deprive this Court of subsequent jurisdiction to review the case. See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. FlowersSearch
-
jurisdiction within constitutional limits. Kline v. BurkeSearch
-
Mayor v. CooperSearch
-
In Louisville, C. & C. R. Co. v. LetsonSearch
-
Ten years later, the Court in Marshall v. BaltimoreSearch
-
in State B, perhaps a State where the corporation did no business at all. See Black and White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. BrownSearch
-
Compare Burdick v. DillonSearch
-
with Continental Coal Corp. v. RoszelleSearch
-
was located in that State. See, e.g., Long v. SilverSearch
-
Pinnacle Consultants, Ltd. v. LeucadiaSearch
-
business activities. See, e.g., Topp v. CompairSearch
-
s actual business activities are located. See, e.g., Diaz-Rodriguez v. PepSearch
-
R. G. Barry Corp. v. MushroomSearch
-
See, e.g. , Gafford v. GeneralSearch
-
Amoco Rocmount Co. v. AnschutzSearch
-
the State where a corporation is least likely to suffer out-of-state prejudice when it is sued in a local court, Pease v. PeckSearch
-
place. 12 Oxford English Dictionary 495 (2d ed. 1989) (def. (A)(I)(2)). Cf. Commissioner v. SolimanSearch
-
Davis v. HSBCSearch
-
Second, administrative simplicity is a major virtue in a jurisdictional statute. Sisson v. RubySearch
-
the merits of their claims, but which court is the right court to decide those claims. Cf. Navarro Savings Assn. v. LeeSearch
-
obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it. Arbaugh v. Y &Search
-
H Corp ., 546 U. S. 500 , 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. MarathonSearch
-
Predictability is valuable to corporations making business and investment decisions. Cf. First Nat. City Bank v. BancoSearch
-
burden of persuasion for establishing diversity jurisdiction, of course, remains on the party asserting it. Kokkonen v. GuardianSearch
-
McNutt v. GeneralSearch
-
E.g., Felker v. TurpinSearch
-
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. FlowersSearch
-
Commissioner v. SolimanSearch
-
Court. Hertz Corp. v. FriendSearch
-
The Hertz Corporation, Petitioner V. MelindaSearch
-
Wisconsin Knife Works v. NationalSearch
-
See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. FlowersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial