Hertz Corporation v. Friend
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 10, 2009
|Feb 23, 2010||9-0||Breyer||OT 2009|
Holding: Federal courts have â€œdiversity jurisdictionâ€ to hear suits alleging solely violation of state law if the parties to the lawsuit are citizens of different states. A corporation is considered to be a citizen of the state where it has its â€œprincipal place of business.â€ In this case, the Court defined that term to mean the state in which the companyâ€™s high level officers control and coordinate its activities, which will usually be its corporate headquarters.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer on February 23, 2010.
- Identifying corporate "nerve centers"
- The "Headquarters Test" or a Multifactor Approach?
- Which State is a Nationwide Corporationâ€™s Principal Place of Business?
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner the Hertz Corporation
- Brief for Respondent Melinda Friend, et al.
- Reply Brief for Petitioner the Hertz Corporation
- Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Business Roundtable, the American Trucking Associations, and the Truck Renting and Leasing Association in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center in Support of Respondent
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Brief amicus curiae of California Retailers Association (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al.(in support of petitioner)
- Petitioner's reply
- Supplemental brief of petitioner