civprocharts_4 - Art. III, S.2 Federal Question - 1331...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Art. III, S.2 Federal Question - 1331 arising under U.S. constitution, laws, or treaties Marshall Test federal ingredient Mottley federal issue must be part of a well pleaded complaint (Defenses, counter-claims excluded) Diversity 1332 Strawbridge complete diversity test Amount in Controversy > 75k legal certainty test single P can aggregate against single D Supplemental Jurisdiction 1367 Allapatah does not overrule Strawbridges complete diversity interpretation of 1332. The presence of a single P from the same state as a single D deprives the court of original jurisidiction over the entire action. Domicile Persons (1) Place person has taken up residence with intent to reside indefinitely Center of gravity Corporation (2) Incorporation Principle place of business Muscle test Nerve test Corporate activities test 1359 deny if party collusively joined to create diversity Diversity satisfied Arising Under? old 1367(a) Same case or controversy Gibbs common nucleus of operative fact 1367(b) (original claim in diversity ) Excludes claims by P against persons made parties under 14, 19, 20, or 24 claims by potential P under 19 or 24 1367(c) (court discretion) May decline jurisdiction if novel or complex state law issue new claim substantial dominates original original jurisdiction claims dismissed in exceptional circumstances there are compelling reasons to dismiss YES JURISDICTION Shoeshine Mining federal law authorized suit but under rights determined by local customs YES JURISDICTION 1 Subject Matter Jurisdiction Capron- Can be appealed anytime, even by court, cant be waived Supplemental jurisdiction satisfied Merrell Dow state law created right to sue and case turned on a construction of federal law, but federal law did not expressly or impliedly create the right to sue NO JURISDICTION NO JURISDICTION Holmes Test 1.) federal law creates underlying substantive right 2.) federal law creates right to sue. Merrel Dow factors: If P is part of class for whose benefit statute was passed Indication of congressional intent to provide cause of action If federal cause of action would further laws underlying purpose If the subject is traditionally regulated by state law. Smith state law created right to sue, but case turned on construction of federal law. Evaluating turned. Did it involve a substantial question of federal law? In rem land within borders constrained to value of property action related to property Personal Jurisdiction Quasi in rem property within borders constrained to value of property action unrelated to property Harris- grab debtor In personam Transitory (in-state presence) Burnham upheld this Tickle- tricked into state exception Domicle Substituted service if out of state Long Arm 4(k)(1)(A) Federal court has reach of State court in state it sits, plus additions in 4(k) described on page 4....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course LAW 433 taught by Professor Wooley during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 20

civprocharts_4 - Art. III, S.2 Federal Question - 1331...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online