# Nicastro v. McIntyre MacHinery America, Ltd.

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · February 2, 2010 · 201 N.J. 48

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747947

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Nicastro and Roseann Nicastro, H/w, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. McIntyre MacHinery America, Ltd., Defendant, and J. McIntyre MacHinery Ltd., Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** February 2, 2010
- **Citations:** 201 N.J. 48; 987 A.2d 575; 2010 N.J. LEXIS 19
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rivera-Soto
- **Judges:** Albin, Hoens, Rivera-Soto
- **Cited by:** 72 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747947

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the British manufacturer’s marketing efforts in the United States lasted froml990 to 2005
- characterizing ruling as “reaffirm[ing] the reasoning” of an earlier decision

## Opinion text

Justice RIVERA-SOTO,
dissenting.
In all respects, I wholeheartedly join in Justice Hoens’s thoughtful, comprehensive and scholarly dissent. I write separately, however, solely to urge explicitly a point implied in Justice Hoens’s dissent.
*100 The majority’s decision implicates and, in large and sweeping swaths, upends established notions of constitutional decision making that form the bedrock of our federal system. In so doing, it offends those core federalist concepts that rightly and'prudentially limit the exercise of any one state’s judicial power via the invocation of long-arm jurisprudence. It, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. Because the majority “has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with” settled federal constitutional principles, Swp.Ct. R. 10(b), creates a new, insubstantial, and meaningless standard for the unbounded exercise of long-arm jurisdiction, and disturbs the careful balance that limits the exercise of judicial power between and among the several states, this decision is ripe for review and correction by the Supreme Court of the United States.
For affirmance and remandment—Chief Justice RABNER and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN and WALLACE—5.
For reversal—Justices RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS—2.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747947. Public record. Not legal advice.