Daimler AG v. Bauman
| 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. 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.