Daimler AG v. Bauman | |
---|---|
Argued October 15, 2013 Decided January 14, 2014 | |
Full case name | DaimlerChrysler AG, Petitioner v. Barbara Bauman, et al. |
Docket no. | 11-965 |
Citations | 571 U.S. 117 (more) 134 S. Ct. 746; 187 L. Ed. 2d 624; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 644; 82 U.S.L.W. 4043 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | Plaintiffs' claims dismissed, Northern District of California; affirmed, 579 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2009); reversed on rehearing, 644 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2011); rehearing en banc denied, 676 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011). |
Holding | |
Daimler cannot be sued in California for injuries allegedly caused by conduct of its Argentinian subsidiary when that conduct took place entirely outside of the United States. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kagan |
Concurrence | Sotomayor (in judgment) |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court answered whether an American court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the jurisdictional state.[1] The court held that an American company cannot be sued for conduct occurring outside the United States and American courts do not have jurisdiction of such a claim.[2]