\u3cem\u3eUnited States v. Barthelmess Ranch Corporation\u3c/em\u3e: You Can Lead Livestock to Water, but Does That Give You the Right to a Claim?

Did the Water Court err in granting partial summary judgment to the United States as claimant of state-law water rights on federal grazing lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management for purposes of stock watering

\u3cem\u3eTyrrell v. BNSF Railway Company\u3c/em\u3e: Is BNSF Being Railroaded into the Montana Court System?

“It is one thing to hold a corporation answerable for operations in the forum State, . . . quite another to expose it to suit on claims having no connection whatever to the forum State.” General jurisdiction is the form of personal jurisdiction that allows a forum state to assert judicial authority over “any and all claims” against a defendant who has sufficient, close contacts with the state—even claims that arise elsewhere. In Daimler AG v. Bauman,3 the United States Supreme Court held that a corporation must be “essentially at home” in the forum state to assert general jurisdiction. To date, the Supreme Court has only found one example of a corporation “essentially at home” outside of its place of incorporation or principal place of business. Congress’s enactment of the FELA does not make railroad companies doing business in Montana another example. Thus, the due process of a railroad corporation should be assessed in the same manner as that of any other corporation by applying the Daimler standard

Getting Back on Track: \u3cem\u3eBNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell\u3c/em\u3e Clarifies FELA Jurisdiction and Venue in State Court\u3c/em\u3e

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) holds a railroad common carrier liable for injuries sustained by employees during their course of employment. Likewise, railroad carriers are liable to an employee’s personal representative for the death of an employee during the course and scope of employment. Section 56 of FELA establishes that FELA claims can be brought in the district where: the defendant railroad resides, the action arose, or the defendant railroad conducts business. It also establishes that federal jurisdiction shall be concurrent with that of the States. Although the United States Supreme Court had previously addressed Section 56, it made clear in BNSF Railway Company v. Tyrrell6 (“BNSF”) that Section 56 is a venue statute, and state courts must comport with the Due Process Clause when asserting jurisdiction over corporations, including railroads. This note provides historical context of how Montana asserted jurisdiction over out-of-state railroad defendants and what the BNSF decision means for future FELA parties