Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States first addressed the question of complete diversity. In a 158-word opinion the Court held that for federal diversity jurisdiction, under section 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, no party on one side of a suit may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side. Therefore, when there are joint plaintiffs or defendants, jurisdiction must be established as to each party. That requirement remains acceptable in law as a matter of statutory interpretation, not constitutional command.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States first addressed the question of complete diversity. In a 158-word opinion the Court held that for federal diversity jurisdiction, under section 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, no party on one side of a suit may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side. Therefore, when there are joint plaintiffs or defendants, jurisdiction must be established as to each party. That requirement remains acceptable in law as a matter of statutory interpretation, not constitutional command. (en)
  • Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States first addressed the question of complete diversity for diversity jurisdiction. In a 158-word opinion the Court held that for federal diversity jurisdiction, under section 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, no party on one side of a suit may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side. Therefore, when there are joint plaintiffs or defendants, jurisdiction must be established as to each party. That requirement remains acceptable in law as a matter of statutory interpretation, not constitutional command. (en)
dbo:wikiPageEditLink
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageExtracted
  • 2020-03-11 05:14:08Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-01 01:21:25Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageHistoryLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 7581941 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 2572 (xsd:integer)
  • 2599 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageModified
  • 2020-03-11 05:14:06Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-01 01:21:22Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageOutDegree
  • 15 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 944995326 (xsd:integer)
  • 981224423 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionLink
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States first addressed the question of complete diversity. In a 158-word opinion the Court held that for federal diversity jurisdiction, under section 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, no party on one side of a suit may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side. Therefore, when there are joint plaintiffs or defendants, jurisdiction must be established as to each party. That requirement remains acceptable in law as a matter of statutory interpretation, not constitutional command. (en)
  • Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States first addressed the question of complete diversity for diversity jurisdiction. In a 158-word opinion the Court held that for federal diversity jurisdiction, under section 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, no party on one side of a suit may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side. Therefore, when there are joint plaintiffs or defendants, jurisdiction must be established as to each party. That requirement remains acceptable in law as a matter of statutory interpretation, not constitutional command. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Strawbridge v. Curtiss (en)
owl:sameAs
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • Strawbridge, et al. v. Curtiss, et al. (en)
  • (en)
is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates of
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is foaf:primaryTopic of