{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
I. INTRODUCTION A. FEDERAL COURT STRUCTURE 28 U.S.C. §§ Supreme Court Court of Appeals District Courts B. STATE COURT STRUCTURE II. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER: THE COMPETENCY OF THE COURT A. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP 1. Article III, §§. 1 2, U.S. Constitution; Supp. Congress gives courts power and has power to create inferior courts Madisonian Compromise created Article 3 Federal Trial Courts Creatures of congress Given power by congress If congress does not authorize that power, cases go to state courts III.1 - Power of one court, but there can be other courts III.2 - Federal courts limited by subject matter (outer limit of what federal courts can consider 1) Arising under Federal Law 2) Ambassadors 3) Maritime & admiralty 4) US is a party 5) Between states 6) Between states & citizens of other states 7) Between citizens of different states 8) Between citizens of same state when land grants in other states 9) Between state or its citizens & foreign states or its subjects 2. Diversity Jurisdiction Statute ( 28 U.S.C. § 1332) $75,000 Citizens of diff states Citizen of a state & a foreigner Diff states & a foreign citizen foreign state ∏ v. citizen of a state? 3. Natural Persons a. Complete Diversity Strawbridge et al. v. Curtiss et al. (1806) Summary: 1332(a)(1) "Law of Complete Diversity" (John Marshall) - Some ∏s citizens of MA, ∆s (MA) except Curtiss (VT)—Each ∏ must be capable of suing each ∆ on diversity b. Domicile Presence Intent to remain
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Gordon v. Steele et al. (1974) Summary: 1332(a)(1) - for diversity purposes, citizen is domiciliary and domiciliary=presence w/intent to remain. F'ton questions rationale since most college students are too brainless to have intent, but rule stands Change of domicile Mas v. Perry (1974) Summary: 1) Domicile: true, fixed and permanent home where one intends to return. Without a domicile, poor M&M Mas can't sue peeping tom landlord, so for diversity purposes, Mr. Mas can take on Mrs. Mas' domicile & Mrs. Mas can claim domicile as last place of domicile: Can't lose a domicile until you affirmatively choose a new one . 2) If recovery claimed at time of filing is more than you end up getting, you keep it if you claimed it in good faith. Aliens in diversity suits Redner v. Sanders ,(S.D.N.Y. 2000) p. 193 Summary: ∏ from CA, resident of France asserts diversity jurisdiction in suit against ∆s from 1332(a)(1) won't work since ∏ not a resident of CA (so can't be a domiciliary) and 1332(a)(2 work since ∏ not citizen of France. Dismissed for lack of diversity (must sue in NY?) 1332(a) - Amendment in 1988 Citizenship not relevant for immigrants with green card for federal jurisdiction (considered re 4. Corporations a. "Total Activity" J.A. Olson Co. v. City of Winona, MS (1987) Summary: 1332(c) "principal place of business" indicates corporations can only be citizens of one state. Court decides to merge "nerve center" test and "place of activity" to "total activity" test - when the activity is passive and occupies little of corporation's time, nerve center; when corporation's operations are far-flung, nerve center; when sole operations in another state, place of activity. Olson is Mississippi citizen.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}