Connection lost
Server error
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro Case Brief
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: 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.
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro 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
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
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
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