J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro
In brief
For this case, the Supreme Court ruled New Jersey could not hear Nicastro's claim against J. McIntyre.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 27, 2011 · Opinion by Justice Kennedy
- What it’s about
- Nicastro sued British maker J. McIntyre in New Jersey after its machine injured him; it sold through a U.S. distributor.
- Who it affects
- The ruling bars Nicastro's claim against J. McIntyre from being heard in New Jersey; six justices agreed on that result, but four adopted Kennedy's reasoning.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned New Jersey’s ruling; six justices agreed the state could not hear Nicastro’s case against J. McIntyre, but only four said the company had not acted there to benefit from its laws.
The machine that injured Nicastro was a scrap-metal machine made in Great Britain.
J. McIntyre was a British manufacturer that sold its machines in the United States through an independent distributor.
Question presented
May a consumer sue a foreign manufacturer in state court over a product that the foreign company marketed and sold in the United States?
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgment is reversed. 201 N. J. 48, 987 A. 2d 575, reversed. JUSTICE KENNEDY, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE THOMAS, concluded that because J. McIntyre never en - gaged in any activities in New Jersey that revealed an intent to invoke or benefit from the protection of the State’s laws, New Jersey is without power to adjudge the company’s rights and liabilities, and its exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
Justice Kennedy and three other justices said New Jersey could not hear the case because McIntyre had done nothing in the state showing it meant to benefit from New Jersey's laws. Justices Breyer and Alito agreed on the outcome based on existing decisions and these facts, without adopting a broad new rule.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 2agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Breyerwrote separately
- Alito
From the opinions
“But instead, six Justices of this Court, in divergent opinions, tell us that the manufacturer has avoided the jurisdiction of our state courts, except perhaps in States where its products are sold in sizeable quantities.”
What's next
New Jersey cannot hear Nicastro's claim against J. McIntyre under this ruling. The decision does not say whether the claim could proceed elsewhere.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Nicastro
Opinion added: Nicastro
More questions
- Did the Court set a broad rule for all foreign manufacturers?
- Justice Kennedy's reasoning had four votes; Justices Breyer and Alito did not endorse a broad rule and agreed only that New Jersey lacked authority on these facts.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.