Lanham v. BNSF Railway Co.
939 N.W.2d 363
Neb.2020Background
- Alexander Lanham, a Nebraska resident, was injured in Texas while working for BNSF and sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) in Lancaster County, Nebraska.
- BNSF is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas, operates in 28 states (including Nebraska), and is registered to do business in Nebraska with a designated agent for service of process.
- BNSF moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (no specific or general jurisdiction); the district court denied the motion, relying on precedent that registration/appointment of an in-state agent implies consent to jurisdiction.
- The district court then granted summary judgment for BNSF on the merits; BNSF cross-appealed the denial of its jurisdictional motion.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss, holding that registration does not constitute consent to general jurisdiction and that BNSF is not "at home" in Nebraska for purposes of general jurisdiction; the court therefore did not decide the negligence merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether registration to do business in Nebraska implies consent to general personal jurisdiction | Lanham: registration and related statutes imply consent or waiver of jurisdictional objection | BNSF: statutes do not constitute consent; implied-consent theory conflicts with due process | Registration alone does not constitute consent; Mittelstadt limited/overruled to the extent inconsistent with modern due process precedents |
| Whether Nebraska courts may exercise general jurisdiction over BNSF (is BNSF "at home" in Nebraska?) | Lanham: BNSF’s substantial in-state assets, employees, tax presence, and operations make it "at home" | BNSF: only incorporated in Delaware and PPB in Texas; Nebraska contacts insufficient | BNSF is not "at home" in Nebraska; general jurisdiction improper |
| Whether Nebraska may exercise specific jurisdiction over BNSF for Lanham’s Texas injury | Lanham: resident plaintiff + registration support jurisdiction | BNSF: injury and operative conduct occurred in Texas with no Nebraska nexus | Court did not find specific-jurisdiction basis; rejected registration route and implied no jurisdiction for an out-of-state injury unrelated to Nebraska |
| Whether district court erred by denying motion to dismiss and granting summary judgment | Lanham: district court correctly exercised jurisdiction and resolved merits | BNSF: district court erred in denying dismissal; merits decision should be vacated if jurisdiction lacking | Court reversed denial of motion to dismiss; because jurisdiction reversed, court did not resolve merits decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (distinguishes general vs. specific jurisdiction; mere continuous activity in forum insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction limited to forum where corporation is "at home")
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (reiterates Daimler: large in-state operations do not by themselves make a corporation "at home")
- Mittelstadt v. Rouzer, 213 Neb. 178 (1982) (Nebraska precedent holding appointment of an in-state agent could imply consent; overruled insofar as incompatible with Daimler)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts framework for specific jurisdiction)
- Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) (example of exceptional circumstances where a corporation was treated as "at home" outside incorporation/PPB)
- Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877) (historical territorial theory of personal jurisdiction)