Gafford v. General Electric Co.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
504 later cases cite Gafford v. General Electric Co.; 84 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Gafford v. General Electric Co.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Abrogated
-
The Supreme Court displaced Gafford's multi-factor test for corporate citizenship and adopted a single nerve-center test.
Hertz Corp. v. Friend · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
The number of factors grew as courts explicitly combined aspects of the “nerve center” and “business activity” tests to look to a corporation’s “total activities,” sometimes to try to determine what treatises have described as the corporation’s “center of gravity.” See, e.g., Gafford v. General Elec. Co., 997 F. 2d 150, 162–163 (CA6 1993). ... We conclude that “principal place of business” is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. It is the place that Courts of Appeals have called the corporation’s “nerve center.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Gafford v. General Electric Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace