Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co

2023-06-27
Share:

Headline: Court upholds that Pennsylvania can require out‑of‑state companies to submit to any suit when they register, overturning the state high court and making it easier for plaintiffs to sue large businesses there.

Holding: The Court held that a company's registration to do business in Pennsylvania qualifies as consent to general jurisdiction, vacated the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's contrary ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Real World Impact:
  • Lets Pennsylvania courts hear suits against registered out-of-state companies on any claim.
  • May increase legal risk for companies doing business in Pennsylvania.
  • Leaves open a federal commerce-clause challenge to be decided on remand.
Topics: where companies can be sued, state business registration rules, workplace illness lawsuits, federal vs. state power

Summary

Background

A former railroad mechanic who worked for Norfolk Southern for nearly 20 years sued the company in Pennsylvania state court after he developed cancer he attributes to workplace exposures. Norfolk Southern is incorporated and headquartered in Virginia but has long operated in Pennsylvania and registered to do business there. Pennsylvania law says companies that register agree to appear in its courts for any claim against them. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that law unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process protection and dismissed the state’s jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and relied on an older decision called Pennsylvania Fire, which approved similar state rules. The Court found that Norfolk Southern had registered in Pennsylvania, accepted the benefits of doing business there, and therefore had the practical effect of consenting to suits in Pennsylvania courts. The state high court erred by treating later cases as having implicitly overruled Pennsylvania Fire. The Supreme Court vacated the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s judgment and sent the case back for more proceedings.

Real world impact

The decision means that, at least under the facts here, people who sue large companies may be able to bring claims in Pennsylvania if the company has registered to do business there. The ruling focuses on whether Pennsylvania courts can hear the case, not on the claim’s merits. One Justice noted that a separate challenge under the federal Commerce Clause was not decided and can be raised on remand.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. One concurrence emphasized that registration amounted to a voluntary waiver of the company’s objection. The main dissent warned this approach undermines recent precedents limiting where companies can be sued.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases