- The Burger King
- Perang burger
- Hungry Jack's
- Whopper
- Mac n' Cheetos
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
- Burger King advertising
- Burger King (mascot)
- Burger King grilled chicken sandwiches
- Burger King Specialty Sandwiches
- Burger King legal issues
- Burger King franchises
- Burger King games
- Burger King Israel
- Burger King Pokémon container recall
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) - Justia US …
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz - CaseBriefs
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz - Wikipedia
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz – (IRAC) Case Brief Summary
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz - Case Brief Summary for Law …
- Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz | Oyez
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz - Quimbee
- BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ - tile.loc.gov
- Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz case brief - OneLBriefs
- Burger King v. Rudzewicz | Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs
The Last Kingdom: Seven Kings Must Die (2023)
The Deadly Breaking Sword (1979)
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024)
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)
Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
The Conference (2023)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz GudangMovies21 Rebahinxxi LK21
Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), is a notable case in United States civil procedure that came before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing personal jurisdiction.
Background
John Rudzewicz was a citizen and resident of the state of Michigan and was the senior partner in a Detroit accounting firm. He was approached by Brian MacShara, the son of a business acquaintance, who suggested that they open a Burger King franchise together. The parties eventually reached an agreement whereby Rudzewicz provided the necessary capital and MacShara assumed the responsibility of managing the restaurant. The partners agreed to share profits equally.
Rudzewicz and MacShara applied jointly to Burger King's district office in Birmingham, Michigan in the fall of 1978. The application was forwarded to Burger King's office in Miami, Florida and the parties reached a preliminary agreement to take the franchise for an existing Burger King location in the Drayton Plains area of Waterford Charter Township, Michigan in February 1979. MacShara attended the prescribed management courses at Burger King University in Miami in order to learn to operate a Burger King franchise. The partners purchased $165,000 in restaurant equipment from Davmor Industries, a Burger King corporate division located in Miami.
Under the franchise agreement, Rudzewicz and MacShara were to remit their franchise fees and royalties to Burger King's Florida headquarters. Due to an economic downturn, the defendants were unable to make their monthly payments to Burger King, prompting the Florida-based corporation to file a lawsuit in Florida for breach of contract and infringement of Burger King's trademarks and service marks through the defendants' unauthorized operation as a Burger King restaurant after the defendants received notice to vacate the premises.
= Burger King's lawsuit
=Burger King brought a diversity action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) against the defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May 1981. Burger King also invoked the Court's original jurisdiction over disputes arising under federal trademark law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). The District Court held that Florida had jurisdiction because of a statute that allowed the state to extend jurisdiction to anyone breaching a contract within the state. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the court's decision, finding that even though the defendants had minimum contacts with Florida, to exercise jurisdiction over the defendants would be fundamentally unfair and thus violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Burger King then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court concluded that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the protections of the forum state (Florida) and were, therefore, subject to jurisdiction there. The Court reasoned that the defendants had a "substantial and continuing" relationship with Burger King in Florida and that due process would not be violated because the defendants should have reasonably anticipated being summoned into court in Florida for breach of contract.
Justice Brennan's general "Reasonableness" or "Fairness" test was evolved into Justice O'Connor's five-factor test of reasonableness announced two years later in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987).
= Dissent
=Justice Stevens dissented in an opinion joined by Justice White. Stevens observed that Rudzewicz had never been to Florida and had no business established in Florida. In Stevens' view, Rudzewicz could not have anticipated being summoned into court in Florida, and it violated the due process clause to require a small businessman in Michigan to defend himself against litigation in Florida.
See also
Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 471
References
External links
Text of Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz Case Brief available at Lawnix.com
Kata Kunci Pencarian:
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz | PDF | Franchising | Diversity Jurisdiction
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz Due Process Clause | PDF | Minimum ...
Burger King v. Rudzewicz 1985 .docx - 10/10 Burger King v. Rudzewicz ...
Burger King v. Rudzewicz case.docx - Legal Aspects of Business Burger ...
Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz.docx - Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz 1 ...
Burger King v. Rudzewicz - Personal Jurisdiction: Purposefully Avail ...
Burger King v. Rudzewicz - Case Brief Template Facts Who sues whom on ...
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz | PDF | Personal Jurisdiction | Lawsuit
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz - Alchetron, the free social encyclopedia
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985): Case Brief Summary ...
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz 471 U.S. 462.docx - Burger King Corp. v ...
Burger King v Rudzewicz Case.docx - Rikaela Refuerzo Dr. Richard Bell ...
burger king corp v rudzewicz
Daftar Isi
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) - Justia US …
Finding that Rudzewicz and MacShara had breached their franchise agreements with Burger King and had infringed Burger King's trademarks and service marks, the court entered judgment …
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz - CaseBriefs
Plaintiff sued Defendants in Florida federal court based on diversity of citizenship for non-payment under the franchise agreement. Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that Florida did …
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz - Wikipedia
Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), is a notable case in United States civil procedure that came before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing personal jurisdiction. [1]
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz – (IRAC) Case Brief Summary
Oct 10, 2022 · Brian MacShara and John Rudzewicz (the defendants) both approved of the franchises of Burger King (the plaintiff). Rudzewicz spent $165,000 for equipment in Miami, …
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz - Case Brief Summary for Law …
Rudzewicz and MacShara fell behind in payments, leading Burger King to terminate the franchise and sue for breach of contract and trademark infringement in Florida, citing Florida's long-arm …
Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz | Oyez
6–2 decision for Burger King Corporation majority opinion by William J. Brennan, Jr.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz - Quimbee
Burger King Corp. sued MacShara and Rudzewicz for breach of contract in federal district court in Florida. Burger King claimed that federal court was appropriate under diversity and trademark …
BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ - tile.loc.gov
BURGER KING CORP. v. RUDZEWICZ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 83-2097. Argued January 8, 1985--Decided …
Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz case brief - OneLBriefs
Rudzewicz fell behind in his monthly payments to BK in Miami, engaged in negotiations with Miami office while trying to work out issues. BK terminated the franchise, but Rudzewicz …
Burger King v. Rudzewicz | Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs
Rudzewicz (Defendant) and MacShara jointly applied for a Burger King franchise in their home state of Michigan. Burger King Corporation (Plaintiff), headquartered in Florida, approved the …