Connection lost
Server error
Hertz Corp. v. Friend Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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: The Supreme Court established the “nerve center” test to determine a corporation’s principal place of business for federal diversity jurisdiction, defining it as where high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate activities.
Legal Significance: This case resolved a circuit split, adopting the “nerve center” test for determining a corporation’s principal place of business under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), prioritizing administrative simplicity and predictability in diversity jurisdiction.
Hertz Corp. v. Friend Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondents, California citizens, sued Hertz Corporation in California state court. Hertz sought removal to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), asserting its principal place of business was in New Jersey, where its corporate headquarters and leadership were located. Respondents argued Hertz was a California citizen because its California business activities (rental locations, employees, revenue, transactions) were substantial. The District Court, applying Ninth Circuit precedent, found California was Hertz’s principal place of business because its business activity there was “significantly larger” than in any other state, thus defeating diversity. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve conflicting interpretations among the Circuits regarding the meaning of “principal place of business.” Hertz’s declaration indicated its core executive and administrative functions were carried out at its New Jersey headquarters, with some operations in Oklahoma, while California accounted for a plurality of its business metrics but not a majority.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: How should a corporation’s “principal place of business” be determined for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)?
The Court held that a corporation’s “principal place of business” is its 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 e
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
How should a corporation’s “principal place of business” be determined for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)?
Conclusion
This decision established a uniform and relatively simple "nerve center" test for 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 exercitat
Legal Rule
For purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, a corporation's "principal place of business" 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
Legal Analysis
The Court adopted the "nerve center" test, emphasizing three main considerations (Opinion, 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A corporation’s “principal place of business” for diversity jurisdiction is its