Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Chelsea House Publishers, a division of Chelsea House Educational Communications, Inc., et al. v. Nicholstone Book Bindery, Inc., 1982 — 455 U.S. 994 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Chelsea House Publishers, a division of Chelsea House Educational Communications, Inc., et al. v. Nicholstone Book Bindery, Inc.
455 U.S. 994·Supreme Court of the United States·1982
with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Powell join,
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 81-1307.
Chelsea House Publishers, a division of Chelsea House Educational Communications, Inc., et al. v. Nicholstone Book Bindery, Inc.
[MAJORITY]
Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
[DISSENT — Justice White,]
Justice White,
with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Powell join,
dissenting.
As I stated in dissenting from the denial of a writ of certio-rari in Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Construction Co., 445 U. S. 907 (1980), “the question of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporate defendant based on contractual dealings with a resident plaintiff has deeply divided the federal and state courts.” Id., at 909. I cited 22 cases in which lower courts had split 14-8 on the question and stressed the “considerable importance [of the issue] to contractual dealings between purchasers and sellers located in different States.” Id., at 909-910. This case presents the same issue as Lakeside, and the disarray among federal and state courts noted in Lakeside has continued. Compare Taubler v. Giraud, 655 F. 2d 991 (CA9 1981), with Nu-Way Systems of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Belmont Marketing, Inc., 635 F. 2d 617 (CA7 1980). For the reasons stated in Lakeside, I would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument.