Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2023 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionConsent to JurisdictionGeneral Personal Jurisdictionpersonal jurisdictiongeneral jurisdictionconsentcorporate registration

Facts

Robert Mallory worked for Norfolk Southern for nearly 20 years in Ohio and Virginia and later developed cancer, which he attributed to workplace exposure to carcinogens. He sued Norfolk Southern in Pennsylvania state court, even though he resided in Virginia when he filed and his alleged exposures occurred in Ohio and Virginia. Norfolk Southern is incorporated in Virginia and was headquartered there when suit began, but it had long operated extensively in Pennsylvania and had registered to do business there since 1998. Under Pennsylvania law, a foreign corporation that registers to do business is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania courts on any cause of action.

Issue

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit Pennsylvania from exercising personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation when the corporation registered to do business in Pennsylvania under a statute that expressly provides for general jurisdiction on any cause of action? More specifically, did Norfolk Southern's registration amount to valid consent to suit in Pennsylvania under Pennsylvania Fire?

Rule

A State does not violate the Due Process Clause by exercising personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation that has registered to do business under a state law expressly requiring amenability to suit on any cause of action as a condition of registration. Pennsylvania Fire remains controlling law, and International Shoe provides an additional basis for jurisdiction over nonconsenting corporations rather than displacing consent-based jurisdiction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Red Clay Freight Systems is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Tennessee. To operate terminals in Pennsylvania, it filed the registration required by Pennsylvania law, maintained a registered office in Harrisburg, and continued doing business there for years. Olivia Kent, a Florida resident, later sued Red Clay in a Pennsylvania court over an injury allegedly caused by Red Clay's conduct in Alabama.

Red Clay moves to dismiss, arguing that Pennsylvania lacks personal jurisdiction because Olivia is not a Pennsylvania resident and the claim arose entirely outside Pennsylvania. How should the court rule on the Due Process Clause objection?

Explanation. The majority held that due process is satisfied when a state statute expressly conditions a foreign corporation's right to do business on amenability to suit on any cause of action, and the corporation registers under that scheme. The plaintiff's nonresidence and the out-of-state accrual of the claim do not matter when jurisdiction rests on consent rather than contacts-based specific jurisdiction. (Derived from Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023).)