Diversity Jurisdiction
For diversity jurisdiction to exist, parties must be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy must exceed this dollar figure.
75k
This is the general term for a federal court's authority to hear the type of case before it, as opposed to authority over the parties.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
This 1878 Supreme Court case established that a state court could not exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who was not personally served within the state's territorial boundaries.
Pennoyer v. Neff
A plaintiff planning to sue a same-state defendant who knows that the defendant will raise U.S. statutory defenses and U.S. constitutional defenses can place the anticipated federal issues into his/her complaint and therefore file the case in U.S. District Court because that court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case because of the federal questions raised. This is true even if plaintiff’s claims arise from state law.
This is the legal term for a person's true, fixed, permanent home — the place they intend to return to — which determines their state citizenship for diversity purposes.
domicile
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have jurisdiction over cases "arising under" this — the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Federal law
This is the legal term for a court's power over the specific parties in a lawsuit, as distinct from its power over the type of case.
Plaintiff Elliot Smith, a resident of Nebraska, filed a $100,000 libel action in Nebraska state court against a California resident: Ben Folds. Five days after being served Folds removes the action to Federal court. Five days after the removal Smith moves to remand. Should the court grant the motion to remand? Why or why not?
No
In this case, a woman who moved to Massachusetts to attend college, intending to return there after graduation despite growing up in Illinois, was found to have changed her domicile.
Gordon v. Steele
This rule holds that a federal question must appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint — not as an anticipated defense — for federal question jurisdiction to exist.
Well-pleaded complaint rule
This landmark 1945 case replaced strict territorial power with a new standard: that a defendant must have certain "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that jurisdiction does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
Patty has always lived in California. She wants to sue both Depot, Inc. and Designer Closets in a single lawsuit for breach of contract. Depot is a Montana corporation with its headquarters in Arizona. Designer Closets is a Limited Liability Company whose members are individual citizens of Arizona, Nevada and Montana and a corporate member which is incorporated in Washington with its headquarters in Los Angeles, California Assuming the amount in controversy is $100,000, would a federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction? Why or why not?
No
In this case, a French citizen married to a U.S. citizen, both graduate students living in Louisiana, was found to retain her own separate domicile rather than automatically taking her husband's — establishing diversity.
Perry v. Mas
In this 1908 case, a railroad retiree sued for breach of a pension agreement, anticipating the railroad would raise a federal statute as a defense; the Supreme Court held this wasn't enough to establish federal question jurisdiction.
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
In this 1957 case, the Court found jurisdiction proper over an out-of-state insurance company based on a single insurance contract with a state resident, holding that even a single, substantial contact could satisfy due process.
What is McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
In this 2010 Supreme Court case, the Court adopted the "nerve center" test for determining a corporation's principal place of business, looking to where its high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate corporate activities.
Herz Corp. v. Friend
In this case involving an oil pipeline spill and state-law tort claims, the court held that federal question jurisdiction could not rest on the plaintiff's complaint merely referencing or anticipating a federal regulatory scheme as a defense.
Avitts v. Amoco Production Co.
This is the two-part due process test for personal jurisdiction established by International Shoe: the defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum, and exercising jurisdiction must not offend this standard.
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice