Today in Supreme Court History: February 18, 1988

2/18/1988: Justice Anthony Kennedy takes judicial oath.

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bibles v. Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n, 519 U.S. 355 (decided February 18, 1997): Freedom of Information Act did not entitle environmental group to obtain mailing list of Bureau of Land Management’s newsletter “so that alternative information could be sent to them”

Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (decided February 18, 1997): antiretaliation provision of Civil Rights Act of 1964 applied to post-employment actions (here, negative reference given by former employer against whom plaintiff, now seeking another job, had filed a racial discrimination complaint with the EEOC)

General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278 (decided February 18, 1997): buyer of natural gas had standing to challenge state exemption of local distributors from sales and use taxes placed on sellers (the Court held that the exemption did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause or Equal Protection)

McMillan v. McNeill, 17 U.S. 209 (decided February 18, 1819): foreign bankruptcy not effective in this country; contract supposedly discharged there still enforceable here

Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (decided February 18, 1924): upholds against Equal Protection attack New York statute requiring drivers for hire to obtain liability insurance; statute applied only to large cities and was relevant to public safety

[Dilan Esper]

Bibles? Wait, is that an in rem case?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’m too dense to get the joke, sorry

[Noscitur a sociis]

In rem cases have the property at issue as a party, leading to unusual case names like United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls. Dilan Esper is suggesting that the this could have been an in rem case involving some bibles, rather than the petitioner being a person named D. Dean Bibles. Which is perhaps less fanciful than one might suppose. See Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966).

[Dan Schiavetta]

I get it now!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"McMillan v. McNeill, 17 U.S. 209 (decided February 18, 1819): foreign bankruptcy not effective in this country; contract supposedly discharged there still enforceable here"

The Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway (US corporation) went bankrupt as a result of its Canadian subsidiary going bankrupt after the 2013 Lac-Mégantic (Quebec) oil train derailment and subsequent fire. Bankruptcy law has likely changed a bit in the past 200 years -- didn't have multinational corporations back then.

[Dilan Esper]

Yeah, I suspect whether by operation of international law or simply conflicts of law rules, courts will now "enforce" at least the discharging effect of a foreign bankruptcy absent public policy or statutory reasons to reject it.

[Voize]

Perhaps, but the MM&A wind-down was the result of parallel proceedings in Quebec and Maine.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s barely worth noting, but Dr. Ed is of course wrong: the U.S. corporation filed a bankruptcy action in Maine. See Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. and Richter Advisory Group, Inc., 2:15-bk-20518 (Bankr. D. Me. 2015).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because of a liability in a foreign country.

You do know that Canada is a foreign country, right?

Now MMA wasn't doing well before this -- the B&A never recovered from the loss of the potato traffic after the PennCentral let the crop freeze, and when the two paper mills went bankrupt, they didn't have a whole lot of traffic left -- particularly after the Madawaska mill finally got fed up with them and put its product onto trucks and DROVE it across the river and to the Canadian railroad that was taking it most of the way anyway.

But the liability was in Canada.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Your point being what, exactly?

[David Nieporent]

It has absolutely no relevance where the liability arose; it wasn't a foreign bankruptcy, which was the topic of the thread.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Let me guess...Stange New Respect?