J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A foreign manufacturer selling products through a U.S. distributor is not subject to personal jurisdiction in a state where its product caused injury if the manufacturer did not specifically target that state.
Legal Significance: This case significantly narrowed the “stream-of-commerce” theory for specific personal jurisdiction, requiring a defendant to purposefully target the forum state, not merely place a product into a national distribution system.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Robert Nicastro was seriously injured in New Jersey while using a metal-shearing machine manufactured by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. (J. McIntyre), a company incorporated and operating in England. J. McIntyre did not sell its machines directly in the United States but entered into an agreement with an independent Ohio-based company to serve as its exclusive U.S. distributor. J. McIntyre officials attended annual scrap recycling conventions in various U.S. cities, but never in New Jersey, to advertise their machines. At most, four J. McIntyre machines, including the one that injured Nicastro, ended up in New Jersey. J. McIntyre had no office, employees, property, or advertising in New Jersey. It did not directly ship goods to or target the state in any manner. The New Jersey Supreme Court asserted jurisdiction, reasoning that J. McIntyre knew its products were sold through a nationwide distribution system and could foreseeably end up in any state.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state court have specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer that placed its products into the stream of commerce through a national distributor, without evidence that the manufacturer purposefully targeted the forum state itself?
No. A foreign manufacturer is not subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehender
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a state court have specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer that placed its products into the stream of commerce through a national distributor, without evidence that the manufacturer purposefully targeted the forum state itself?
Conclusion
The decision narrows the stream-of-commerce basis for specific jurisdiction, emphasizing a defendant-focused Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magn
Legal Rule
For a defendant to be subject to a state's specific personal jurisdiction, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat
Legal Analysis
The plurality opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy, rejected the New Jersey Supreme Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Placing a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is