Name of the case and its citation The case in Question is the case of “Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A, et al. v. Brown et, ux.,” (Syllabus1, 2010, n.p) . “ Co-Administrators of the Estate of brown, et al., Certiorari to the high court of Appeals of North Carolina Supreme Court No.10-76. Argued January 11, 2011-Decided June 27, 2011” (Syllabus, 2010, n.p). Parties to the case The Petitioners are Goodyear Dunlop Tires Corporation, a Tire Company and the respondents are North Carolina residents who lost their sons in a bus accident in France. Particulars There was a fatal bus accident outside Paris in France amounting to the deaths of the respondents sons who hailed from North Carolina. The suit was brought by Goodyear Dunlop Tire Operations based in France complaining about wrongful death damages in the North Carolina state court claiming that the deaths were as a result of a tire failure caused By Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations who are based in Ohio. The petitioners were three subsidiaries of the Goodyear Dunlop Tires company who took part in organization and operations in France, Turkey and Luxembourg. The petitioners were not registered to carry out business in North Carolina and their tires were specifically made for the European and Asian Markets. The petitioners did not sell, advertise, solicit, manufacture, design nor did they have a place of business in the United States. They did not engage with the North Carolinas residents in the Buyer-seller contract. However, some of their products managed to penetrate the North Carolina market through their affiliates in the United States of America. They applied for a petition to have the trial taken to France which was rejected. The constitutional issues in the case The first Constitutional issue arising in this case was whether the North Carolina Supreme court had general jurisdiction in the matter. This is a contentious issue as goodyear was a company registered in Ohio and did not carry out any of their operation in North Carolina or in the United States of America. In fact there products were only found in the United States due to the actions or inactions of their affiliates. The issues on jurisdiction that arose in this case were issues of ‘lex fori’. This is whether the North Carolina Court was the most appropriate court to hear the petition as France had the most substantial connection with the case. The mother company was registered in France and companies in the United States were only its subsidiaries. The accident also happened in France outside the United States of America (Ginsburg, 2011). Another issue concerning jurisdiction was whether the case in France would be more favorable and comfortable to the residents of North Carolina in terms of affordability and comfortability. Decision of the court in terms of votes The decision of the court was unanimous. All the nine jury members voted for dismissal of personal jurisdiction by the petitioners. Opinion of the court The North Carolina court in dismissing the motion for petitioners and upholding the jurisdiction of the trial courts held that north Carolina would be the most suitable place for the trial of the case as there was organized marketing of the company’s product in the United States Market as the tires that caused the injuries were made according to quality standards of the United States standard and bore markings which were similar to other tires in the united state and accordingly distribution was through a stream of commerce. The Courts also stated tha