|
|
Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Ford, 504 U.S. 648 (1992)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Ford, 504 U.S. 648 (1992)
Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. Ford No. 91-779 Argued April 20, 1992 Decided June 12, 1992 504 U.S. 648
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA
Syllabus
Respondents sued petitioner, their employer, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act in the state court in Yellowstone County, Montana. That court denied petitioner’s motions to change venue to Hill County, where petitioner claimed to have its principal place of business in Montana. The State Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that Montana’s venue rules -- which permit a plaintiff to sue a corporation incorporated in that State only in the county of its principal place of business, but permit suit in any county against a corporation, like petitioner, that is incorporated elsewhere -- do not work a discrimination violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Held: The distinction in treatment contained in Montana’s venue rules does not offend the Equal Protection Clause. Those rules neither deprive petitioner of a fundamental right nor classify along suspect lines like race or religion, and are valid because they can be understood as rationally furthering a legitimate state interest: adjustment of the disparate interests of parties to a lawsuit in the place of trial. Montana could reasonably determine that only the convenience to a corporate defendant of litigating in the county of its home office outweighs a plaintiff’s interest in suing in the county of his choice. Petitioner has not shown that the Montana venue rules’ hinging on State of incorporation, rather than domicile, makes them so under- or overinclusive as to be irrational. Besides, petitioner, being domiciled outside Montana, would not benefit from a rule turning on domicile, and therefore cannot complain of a rule hinging on State of incorporation. Power Manufacturing Co. v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490, distinguished. Pp. 650-654.
250 Mont. 188, 819 P.2d 169 (1991), affirmed.
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Ford, 504 U.S. 648 (1992) in 504 U.S. 648 504 U.S. 649. Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KT6D32H4DAJ3114.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Ford, 504 U.S. 648 (1992), in 504 U.S. 648, page 504 U.S. 649. Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KT6D32H4DAJ3114.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Ford, 504 U.S. 648 (1992). cited in 1992, 504 U.S. 648, pp.504 U.S. 649. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KT6D32H4DAJ3114.
|