Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Diversity of Citizenship
The U.S. Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over controversies involving diverse parties. This includes disputes between citizens of different states, citizens of a state and foreign citizens, and more. One key aspect is domicile, which plays a crucial role in determining jurisdiction in cases involving diversity of citizenship.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
federal subject matter jurisdiction diversity and alienage jurisdiction
U.S. Const. Article III. U.S. Const. Article III. Section. 2. Clause 1:The judicial Power shall extend to Controversies between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States Citizens of different States and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects States, Citizens or Subjects. between between a
Sec. 1332. Sec. 1332. - - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-- (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.. . . (e) The word ''States'', as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
burden of proof is on? who decides the factual question of domicile?
under both Idaho and Pennsylvania law, Gordon is domiciled in Pennsylvania does that matter?
intent to remain indefinitely v. intent to make it your home
Gordon intends to remain indefinitely in Idaho/to make Idaho her home she leaves for Idaho but gets into an accident in Illinois on the way, remains there for recovery domicile?
would it matter that she had visited Idaho before the accident?
intent to remain indefinitely v. intent to make it your home how does Gordon come out under each test?
Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298 (3d Cir. 1972) Applying these principles to the evidence before the factfinder, we cannot construe, as clearly erroneous, its finding that the defendant intended to remain in the Commonwealth for an indefinite period of time.
what if she intended to go to Colorado after graduation?
Michael Green, a Californian, moved to Virginia to take a job at William and Mary Law School he intends to return to California on his 65th birthday
28 U.S.C. 1332(a) complete diversity complete alienage
Examples: is there federal SMJ under 28 USC 1332(a)? assumptions: - jurisdictional minimum is met - action is brought in federal court by the plaintiff - foreign national is domiciled in his own country (unless otherwise stated)
Californian sues a German (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state ... as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
Californian sues a New Yorker and a Californian (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state ... as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
does it make sense that there is no diversity under 1332(a) for such a case?
German sues a Frenchman (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state ... as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
New Yorker sues Californian and Frenchman (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state ... as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
A New Yorker and a German sue a Californian and a German (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state ... as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
Californian sues a French citizen admitted for permanent residency in the United States who is domiciled in California (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state ... as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
German sues French citizen admitted for permanent residency in the United States who is domiciled in California (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state ... as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
German sues French citizen admitted for permanent residency in the United States who is domiciled in California could Congress send this case to federal court?
U.S. Const. Article III. U.S. Const. Article III. Section. 2. Clause 1:The judicial Power shall extend to Controversies between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States Citizens of different States and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects States, Citizens or Subjects. between between a
Californian sues Elizabeth Taylor, an American national domiciled in France (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state ... as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
- Dred Scott, a slave owned in Missouri, is taken by his master to Wisconsin Territory (a free territory) - Scott lives there for a while and then returns with his master to Missouri. - Sanford, a New York citizen becomes Scott s master - Scott sues Sanford in federal court to establish that his time in a free territory had made him free under state law - diversity jurisdiction?
A German sues a Frenchman and a New Yorker (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state ... as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
A citizen of DC sues a Virginian under Virginia state law
1332(e) The word ''States'', as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
U.S. Const. Article III. U.S. Const. Article III. Section. 2. Clause 1:The judicial Power shall extend to Controversies between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States Citizens of different States and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects States, Citizens or Subjects. between between a
National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc. (1949)
what happens to SMJ if Judy Mas receives Jean Paul Mas s domicile at marriage?
what if the 5thCir. had reversed the district court concerning SMJ?
