STRAWBRIDGE ET AL.
v.
CURTISS ET AL.
Marshall, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court. — The court has considered this case, and is of opinion, that the jurisdiction cannot be supported.
The words of the act of congress are, “ where an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of a state where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state.” The court understands these expressions to mean, that each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom are entitled to sue, or may be sued, in the federal courts. That is, that where the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue, or liable to be sued, in those courts.
But the court does not mean to give an opinion in the case where several parties represent several distinct interests, *and some of those parties r,... are, and others are not, competent to sue, or liable to be sued, in the *- •courts of the United States.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (242 total)
-
Romero v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1959)…gent for Compania, did it have the operation and control of the vessel. The remaining claims, including those against the other respondents, were dismissed because of lack of the requisite complete diversity under the rule of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267. Upon examination of the Spanish law the district judge also declined jurisdiction “even in admiralty as a matter of discretion.” 142 F. Supp., at 574. The Spanish law provides Romero with a lifetime pension of 35% to 55% of his seaman’s wages which…1 / 2
-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1964)…to the renewal of such a motion in the lower courts if it appears that C. A. V.’s interests are not adequately represented by Farr, Whit-lock and that the granting of such a motion will not disturb federal jurisdiction. Cf. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267; Indianapolis v. Chase Nat’l Bank, 314 U. S. 63, at 69; Ex parte Edelstein, 30 F. 2d 636, at 638. Before considering the holding below with respect to the act of state doctrine, we must deal with narrower grounds urged for dismissal of the action o…
-
Univ. OF S. Ala. v. THE Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999)…ates when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (1994). Where jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship, all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806). Moreover, it is well established that a state is not a citizen of a state for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Moor v. Alameda County, 411 U.S. 693, 717, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 1800, 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (citing Po…
Previewing 3 of 242 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172 (U.S. 1870)
- The Corp. of New-Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91 (U.S. 1816)