翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Herttoniemenranta ・ Herttoniemi ・ Herttoniemi dumping ground ・ Herttoniemi metro station ・ Hertu ・ Hertwig ・ Herty Advanced Materials Development Center ・ Herty Field ・ Herty Lewites ・ Herty, Texas ・ Hertz ・ Hertz (crater) ・ Hertz (disambiguation) ・ Hertz (surname) ・ Hertz Car Sales ・ Hertz Corp. v. Friend ・ Hertz Foundation ・ Hertz Investment Group ・ Hertz mobile audio ・ Hertza region ・ Hertzberg ・ Hertzberg Clock (San Antonio) ・ Hertzberger ・ Hertzfeld ・ Hertzian ・ Hertzian cone ・ Hertzing ・ Hertzler ・ Hertzog ・ Hertzog Prize Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Hertz Corp. v. Friend ： ウィキペディア英語版 Hertz Corp. v. Friend ''Hertz Corp. v. Friend'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court supported the "nerve center" test for determining corporate citizenship in the context of . Hertz Corp believed that the case brought forward could not be tried in California jurisdiction and therefore hoped a case in a California court would be thrown out. However, the court ruled that there was California jurisdiction that was appropriate and re-established the importance of the "place of operations" test for firms.〔(【引用サイトリンク】 work =Jones Day Publications )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】 work =Supreme Court of the United States )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】 work =Legal Information Institute: Cornell University Law School )〕 ==Background== In September 2007, respondents Melinda Friend and John Nhieu, both citizens of California, sued Hertz Corporation in a California Court, seeking damages for what was claimed to be a violation of California's wage and hour laws on behalf of a number of Californians who had allegedly experienced similar damages.〔〔〔 Hertz petitioned to move the case to a federal court, claiming that the two parties were citizens of different states and therefore diversity-of-citizenship was relevant. To further support this claim, Hertz provided details showing that its operations were primarily in New Jersey and that its California operations were minor and did not constitute as its principle place of business.〔〔〔 Initially the court ruled that California was certainly a place of major business for Hertz, since a large amount of its revenue and income came from the state, and thus declared it was liable under California jurisdiction. However, a subsequent ruling for a case involving Best Buy declared that Best Buy was not a citizen of California, despite similar circumstances and even less overall operations in the state. After this Hertz petitioned for a writ of Certiorari which the court granted.〔〔〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Hertz Corp. v. Friend」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.