Document: 425 U.S. 637 96 S.Ct. 1800 48 L.Ed.2d 263 AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,v.Virgil B. STARNES. No. 74-1481. Argued Feb. 23, 1976. Decided May 19, Syllabus Though Texas' general venue statute provides that no inhabitant of the State shall be sued outside county his domicile, an exception where a Texas corporation is defendant in pertinent part for suit domiciliary only if at preliminary hearing it proved by preponderance evidence plaintiff has cause action. No such proof required under another applicable against foreign like appellant, which qualified to do business Texas. On appellant's challenge constitutionality this procedure as being invidiously discriminatory does not accord pretrial advantages are given domestic as, Inter alia, previewing its adversary's case chief and cross-examining plaintiff's witnesses, Held statutory scheme violative equal protection, since appears matter practice, prima facie regarded meeting burden corporation, with result have any appreciable advantage over corporation. Thus, procedure, though facially discriminatory, nondiscriminatory application. Pp. 642-646. 515 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.Civ.App.), affirmed. Joel W. Westbrook, San Antonio, Tex., appellant. V. Dunnam, Jr., Waco, appellee. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Appellant, American Motorists Insurance Co., Illinois authorized principal office Dallas County. As such, "person" "inhabitant" having "domicile" County purposes statute, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat., Art. 1995 (1964). Snyder v. Pitts, 150 Tex. 407, 241 136 (Tex.1951). Article provides, specified exceptions: "No person who out he domicile . ." The exceptions Exceptions 23 27 1995. Under Exception suits corporations may brought upon hearing, agency or representative resided near time action arose, but also, evidence, Victoria Bank & Trust Co. Monteith, 138 216, 158 63 (Tex.Com.App.1941). 27, on other hand, allows corporations, including those Texas, "in company representative," prove, elements hearing.1 question decision case, therefore, ishether effects invidious discrimination constituting repugnant Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. 2 Appellee Starnes, resident McLennan County, appellant District Court uninsured-motorist provisions liability insurance policy issued appellee automobile collision appellee's damages arose occurred Tarrant Appellant filed plea privilege residence, A verified pleading which, challenges suit. Tex.Rule Civ.Proc. 86. controverting plea, states specifically grounds relied confer one more Ibid. asserted virtue both preliminy exclusively stipulation parties was transacting had local agent Although counsel inquired "if Plaintiff than contained stipulation" answered: "Not time," App. 15, court, nor did attempt, offer overruled privilege. 3 Appellant's appeal Civil Appeals presented single whether "is unconstitutionally because permits bound without (plaintiff's) proving action, existence within corporation's compared requirement can Subdivision demonstrated." 354, 355 (1974). Appeals, relying Supreme Commercial Ins. Adams, 369 927 (1963),2 held "exception void unconstitutiol 14th Amendment United States Constitution affording wider afforded Section same Article." S.W.2d, 355. dismissed application writ error "for want jurisdiction." We noted probable jurisdiction, 423 819, 30, 46 35 (1975).3 affirm. 4 unable say treatment effected constitutes Clause. gist argument that, require demonstrate there "(d)enied virtually unique opportunity preview (except extent damages); cross-examine witnesses nature alleged action; obtain from ruling would, circumstances, tantamount judicial assessment nip frivolous baseless claim 'in bud,' before could escalate into lengthy, complex time-consuming lawsuit; finally, obtain, demanding jury trial facts, either early merits least credibility."4 It suggested oral argument, however, actual imposed falls far short evidence. While law seems reject sufficient, see 66-67, suggest practice proceedings usually truncated burden.5 In circumstance corporate would appear enjoy denied defendant. At most suing subjected some measure discovery. But summary judgment 166-A, broad discovery procedures, Rules 167-170, 177a, 186-215c, 737; they equally available cannot suffers comparable hearing. For, said analogous context: "(I)t fundamental rights safeguards mere forum proper designate enforcement protection rights. Given therefore condition protected preserved, impossible thus preserved been deemed best provide another. view tribunal proceed determines afforded, tribunals provided laws prevail." Cincinnati Street R. Snell, 193 36-37, 24 319, 321, L.Ed. 604, 607 (1904). confined language determining effect. Just face grossly operation, Williams Illinois, 399 235, 242, 90 2018, 2022, 26 586, 593 (1970); Griffin 351 12, 17 n. 11, 76 585, 590, 100 891, 898 (1956), so operation. There effect achieved aspects calling establishment we difficulty concluding must rejected.6 5 Beyond superficial noted, broader geographically corporations. ppellant, difference. See Tr. Oral Arg. 4-5. event, aside, law, residence county. situation precisely same. undisputed 6 Affirmed. 7 Chief BURGER, whom REHNQUIST joins, concurring judgment. 8 Like Court, I am "unable Clause." reach conclusion, somewhat different reasons sets out. 9 sue up making case. "discrimination" between two types wherever "an representative." 1995, my view, amount denial protection. "It 37, To treats differently, difference rational basis. 10 "The degree effective control state exercise opposed justifies classification adopted legislature. respect arbitrary unconstitutional. regards submitting certain qualifying state, justification less evident, nevertheless able give citizens assurance redress injuries committed corporations." 366 801, 808-809 refused, (Tex.1963). 11 Bain Peanut Pinson, 282 499, 501, 51 228, 229, 75 482, 491 (1931), held: interpretation constitutional principles too literal. remember machinery government work were allowed little play joints." also Power Mfg. Saunders, 274 490, 497, 47 678, 680, 71 1165, 1169 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting). 12 invoked provision agent. Had permitted bring home neither instance prove order show venue, beyond raises issue. 13 true might when accrued, long there. used hypothetical county, him venue. implies This create problem fact courts really Because similarly situated use fail how "right" procedures attend use, anything had. 14 me, short, posed synthetic casting issue does. dispose it, proceeds rely rather novel proposition: private litigant states, spite what contrary, cases enforce face, will uphold law. believe accept proposition serious prefer part: except following cases: "23. Corporations associations. Suits cor- poration, association, joint stock situated; thereof arose; association county; or, then nearest representative. railroad assignee, trustee receiver operating railway, through extends operated. receivers persons otherwise "27. Foreign public, companies associations, incorporated State, doing representative, plaintiffs them, reside." Adams Per curiam affirmance holding Houston 801 (1963), unconstitutional rejecting contention violated stated: "There administered all counties applies common knowledge many taking authorizing them subjecting regulation. difficult, impossible, ascertain state. remote population centers conducts office, fact, ordinarily maintained incorporation. likely find uneconomical. Competitive factors probably dictate located intends conduct business. Thus favored concern choose city place doubt securing service factor inducing legislature wide actions them. well mind spreading litigation involving among various avoid possibility increasing congested dockets metropolitan courts. unconstitutionality rests heavily act attacked undoubtedly enacted legality arises, reason change provisions, enactment amending burdens placed removed 808-809. Court's jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), requires review here sought final. For stated Mercantile Nat. Langdeau, 371 555, 558, 83 520, 522, 523, 526 presently final 1257(2). Brief 17-18. Rule 87 demanded issue, "the discretion, tried time." Despite absence limitation inapplicable thereby denying merits. occasion, address whether, eliminated ground their complaint simply trial. demanded, decide context bench occurred. disclosed argument: "(T)echnically, legally, according decisions, truth then, factual analysis, proof. "Actually, way goes, man makes He doesn't judge never known cite just weighing facts. If overruled. "That many, years changed course, jealous own your Honor, files shows client says light green him, takes stand, do. puts privilege." 23. appeared tacitly concede case: "QUESTION: Normally, sort hears plaintiff? "MR. WESTBROOK: No, sir, go that. our trials finder facts kind business, upset evidence." Id., 10. Where truncated, 87, 22. effectively waived enjoys Our conclusion unnecessary consideration 1165 (1927), invalidation 27. recent decisions raise Saunders continues good Allied Stores Ohio Bowers, 358 79 437, 480 (1959); Metropolitan Cas. Brownell, 294 580, 55 538, 1070 (1935); 482 (1931); argues, conclude involved treated reasonable basis arbitrarily. That personal regard there, whereas character, officer resided.

Category: 8