Karayanni.FN023.Piper Aircraft v. Reyno.pdf - The University of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PIPER AIRCRAFT CO. v. REYNO235 STEVENS, J., dissentingAmerican court is likely to be insignificant. The Americaninterest in this accident is simply not sufficient to justify theenormous commitment of judical time and resources thatwould inevitably be required if the case were to be tried here.IVThe Court of Appeals erred in holding that the possibilityof an unfavorable change in law bars dismissal on the groundof forum non conveniens. It also erred in rejecting the DistrictCourt's Gilbert analysis. The District Court properlydecided that the presumption in favor of the respondent'sforum choice applied with less than maximum force becausethe real parties in interest are foreign. It did not act unreasonablyin deciding that the private interests pointed towardstrial in Scotland. Nor did it act unreasonably in decidingthat the public interests favored trial in Scotland. Thus, thejudgment of the Court of Appeals isReversed.JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the decision of thesecases.JUSTICE O'CONNOR took no part in the consideration or decisionof these cases.JUSTICE WHITE, concurring in part and dissenting in part.I join Parts I and II of the Court's opinion. However, likeJUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE STEVENS, I would not proceedto deal with the issues addressed in Part III. To thatextent, I am in dissent.JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN joins,dissenting.In No. 80-848, only one question is presented for review tothis Court:"Whether, in an action in federal district court broughtby foreign plaintiffs against American defendants, theplaintiffs may defeat a motion to dismiss on the ground of
OCTOBER TERM, 1981STEVENS, J., dissenting 454 U. S.forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantivelaw that would be applied if the case were litigatedin the district court is more favorable to them than the lawthat would be applied by the courts of their own nation."Pet. for Cert. in No. 80-848, p. i.In No. 80-883, the Court limited its grant of certiorari, see450 U. S. 909, to the same question:"Must a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum nonconveniens be denied whenever the law of the alternateforum is less favorable to recovery than that whichwould be applied by the district court?" Pet. for Cert.in No. 80-883, p. i.I agree that this question should be answered in the negative.Having decided that question, I would simply remandthe case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration ofthe question whether the District Court correctly decidedthat Pennsylvania was not a convenient forum in which to litigatea claim against a Pennsylvania company that a plane wasdefectively designed and manufactured in Pennsylvania.
Page 1 and 2: Citation: 454 U.S. 235 1981Content
Page 3 and 4: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Syllabus 454 U. S
Page 5 and 6: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
Page 27: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co

Karayanni.FN023.Piper Aircraft v. Reyno.pdf - The University of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?