Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser
| Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, et al. | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 17, 1989 Decided May 22, 1989 |
|
| Full case name | Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, et al. |
| Citations | 490 U.S. 495 (more)
109 S. Ct. 1976; 104 L. Ed. 2d 548; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2538; 57 U.S.L.W. 4543; 1989 AMC 1474
|
| Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Holding | |
| The Court laid out the law of interlocutory appeals for United States federal courts. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Laws applied | |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1291 | |
Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495 (1989), is the touchstone case in which the United States Supreme Court laid out the law of interlocutory appeals for United States federal courts.
Plaintiff cruise passengers had filed a lawsuit in a United States district court against the defendant cruise line for injuries sustained when an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was by terrorists. The cruise ticket included a forum selection clause which required that lawsuits against the cruise line be brought in Naples, Italy.
The cruise line filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, based on the forum selection clause. The district court denied the motion, and the cruise line sought an interlocutory appeal of this motion. The appellate court denied the motion based on the final judgment rule, 28 U.S.C. 1291, asserting that the cruise line would have to wait until the case was decided before filing any appeals. This ruling was immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a party can bring an interlocutory appeal against dismissal of a motion for lack of personal jurisdiction based on the existence of a forum selection clause.
The defendants argued that this fell under the judge-made collateral order doctrine, which allows immediate appeals of rulings that are collateral to the merits of the case, would determine it conclusively, and would not be effectively reviewable unless an immediate appeal were allowed.
...
Wikipedia