Broderick v Rosner

1. Broderick v Rosner • NY law allows piercing the corporate veil concerning NY banks to get to shareholders • NJ doesn’t like this and wants to protect NJ shareholders • Sets up impossible procedural hurdle: Only way in which one could pierce corporate veil for banks in a NJ court (if under another state’s law), is to have all parties present (all officers stockholders debtors and creditors) • Suit in NJ against New Jersey shareholders of NY bank

2. Tennessee Coal, Iron & RR Co v George(US 1914)

3. Crider v Zurich Ins Co (US 1965) • Alabaman injured in Ala while working for Ga corporation • Ala Ct awarded remedy under Ga workers comp statute even though Ga statute said action had to be brought before Ga Comp board • The rule of Tennessee Coal “has been eroded by the line of cases beginning with Alaska Packers and Pacific Insurance.”

4. Privileges & Immunities Clause

5. State cannot withhold from non-residents something important (something bearing on the vitality of the nation as a single entity) • Unless there is a substantial reason for discrimination • and the means chosen (namely state citizenship) bears a substantial relationship to achieving the end

6. CT has guest statute, New York does not • NY guest and host get into accident in CT • Guest sues host in CT court, which – using interest analysis – does not apply guest statute • Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants? • NO – because CT has refrained from regulating to allow NY law to apply? • NY interested because wants NY plaintiff to recover

7. What if CT guest sues NY host for accident in CT • CT court, using interest analysis, does not apply guest statute (because no worry about effect of fraud in CT) • Is the P&I Clause violated, because CT provides a protection to CT defendants but not NY defendants? • In this case cannot say that CT has let the matter be regulated by NY • because NY has no interest in letting a CT plaintiff recover

8. PreclusionRes Judicata

9. P sues D concerning property damages that arose from a car accident • D wins (D not negligent) • May P sue to recover property damages arising from the same accident again? • Assume instead that P won • P brings suit on the judgment • May D collaterally attack the judgment on the merits • May D collaterally attack the judgment for lack of jurisdiction? • May P sue concerning personal injury arising from the same accident?

10. May P2 (another person harmed in the accident) sue D for negligence? • If D had been determined to be not negligent in P’s suit, is P2 precluded from relitigating D’s negligence • If D had been determined to be negligent in P’s suit, is D precluded from relitigating D’s negligence?

11. Fauntleroy v Lum(US 1908)

12. The main argument urged by the defendant to sustain the judgment below is addressed to the jurisdiction of the Mississippi courts. The laws of Mississippi make dealing in futures a misdemeanor, and provide that contracts of that sort, made without intent to deliver the commodity or to pay the price, "shall not be enforced by any court." The defendant contends that this language deprives the Mississippi courts of jurisdiction, and that the case is like Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co. There, the New York statutes refused to provide a court into which a foreign corporation could come, except upon causes of action arising within the state, etc., and it was held that the State of New York was under no constitutional obligation to give jurisdiction to its supreme court against its will. One question is whether that decision is in point.

13. The case quoted concerned a statute plainly dealing with the authority and jurisdiction of the New York court. The statute now before us seems to us only to lay down a rule of decision. The Mississippi court in which this action was brought is a court of general jurisdiction, and would have to decide upon the validity of the bar if the suit upon the award or upon the original cause of action had been brought there. The words "shall not be enforced by any court" are simply another, possibly less emphatic, way of saying that an action shall not be brought to enforce such contracts.