Broderick v Rosner

1

• Broderick v Rosner
• NY law allows piercing the corporate veil
  concerning NY banks to get to shareholders
• NJ doesnt like this and wants to protect NJ
  shareholders
• Sets up impossible procedural hurdle Only way in
  which one could pierce corporate veil for banks
  in a NJ court (if under another states law), is
  to have all parties present (all officers
  stockholders debtors and creditors)
• Suit in NJ against New Jersey shareholders of NY
  bank

2
Tennessee Coal, Iron RR Co v George(US 1914)
3

• Crider v Zurich Ins Co (US 1965)
• Alabaman injured in Ala while working for Ga
  corporation
• Ala Ct awarded remedy under Ga workers comp
  statute even though Ga statute said action had to
  be brought before Ga Comp board
• The rule of Tennessee Coal has been eroded by
  the line of cases beginning with Alaska Packers
  and Pacific Insurance.

4
Privileges Immunities Clause
5

• State cannot withhold from non-residents
  something important (something bearing on the
  vitality of the nation as a single entity)
• Unless there is a substantial reason for
  discrimination
• and the means chosen (namely state citizenship)
  bears a substantial relationship to achieving the
  end

6

• CT has guest statute, New York does not
• NY guest and host get into accident in CT
• Guest sues host in CT court, which using
  interest analysis does not apply guest statute
• Is the PI Clause violated, because CT provides a
  protection to CT defendants but not NY
  defendants?
• NO because CT has refrained from regulating to
  allow NY law to apply?
• NY interested because wants NY plaintiff to
  recover

7

• What if CT guest sues NY host for accident in CT
• CT court, using interest analysis, does not apply
  guest statute (because no worry about effect of
  fraud in CT)
• Is the PI Clause violated, because CT provides a
  protection to CT defendants but not NY
  defendants?
• In this case cannot say that CT has let the
  matter be regulated by NY
• because NY has no interest in letting a CT
  plaintiff recover

8
PreclusionRes Judicata
9

• P sues D concerning property damages that arose
  from a car accident
• D wins (D not negligent)
• May P sue to recover property damages arising
  from the same accident again?
• Assume instead that P won
• P brings suit on the judgment
• May D collaterally attack the judgment on the
  merits
• May D collaterally attack the judgment for lack
  of jurisdiction?
• May P sue concerning personal injury arising from
  the same accident?

10

• May P2 (another person harmed in the accident)
  sue D for negligence?
• If D had been determined to be not negligent in
  Ps suit, is P2 precluded from relitigating Ds
  negligence
• If D had been determined to be negligent in Ps
  suit, is D precluded from relitigating Ds
  negligence?

11
Fauntleroy v Lum(US 1908)
12

• The main argument urged by the defendant to
  sustain the judgment below is addressed to the
  jurisdiction of the Mississippi courts. The laws
  of Mississippi make dealing in futures a
  misdemeanor, and provide that contracts of that
  sort, made without intent to deliver the
  commodity or to pay the price, "shall not be
  enforced by any court." The defendant contends
  that this language deprives the Mississippi
  courts of jurisdiction, and that the case is like
  Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision
  Co. There, the New York statutes refused to
  provide a court into which a foreign corporation
  could come, except upon causes of action arising
  within the state, etc., and it was held that the
  State of New York was under no constitutional
  obligation to give jurisdiction to its supreme
  court against its will. One question is whether
  that decision is in point.

13

• The case quoted concerned a statute plainly
  dealing with the authority and jurisdiction of
  the New York court. The statute now before us
  seems to us only to lay down a rule of decision.
  The Mississippi court in which this action was
  brought is a court of general jurisdiction, and
  would have to decide upon the validity of the bar
  if the suit upon the award or upon the original
  cause of action had been brought there. The words
  "shall not be enforced by any court" are simply
  another, possibly less emphatic, way of saying
  that an action shall not be brought to enforce
  such contracts.