Strawbridge v. Curtiss

3 Cranch 7 U.S. 267 (1806), argued 12 Feb. 1806, decided 13 Feb. 1806 by vote of 6 to 0; Marshall for the Court. Article III of the Constitution provides that federal judicial authority extends to controversies “between Citizens of different States.” The Strawbridge case raised for the first time the knotty problem of diversity jurisdiction involving multiple parties and produced what is known today as the rule of “complete diversity.” Construing section 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (the original grant of diversity jurisdiction) rather than the Constitution itself, Chief Justice John Marshall held that, where multiple parties assert different “interests,” each party must have an adequate jurisdictional basis for being in federal court. The practical effect of this holding was to require that all parties on one side must be diverse from all parties on the other. This requirement remains law today, but only as a matter of statutory construction, not as a mandate of the Constitution itself. ()

See also Judicial Power and Jurisdiction.

— William M. Wiecek

Strawbridge v. Curtiss
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 12, 1806 Decided February 13, 1806
Full case name	Strawbridge, et al. v. Curtiss, et al.
Citations	7 U.S. 267 (more) 3 Cranch 267; 1806 WL 1213 (U.S.Mass.); 2 L.Ed. 435
Holding
A controversy is not "between citizens of different states," so as to give jurisdiction to the federal courts, unless all the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons on the other side.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Marshall Associate Justices William Cushing · William Paterson Samuel Chase · Bushrod Washington William Johnson
Case opinions
Majority	Marshall, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Judiciary Act of 1789

Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806)^[1], 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, every party on one side must be citizens of a different state. Therefore, when there are joint plaintiffs or defendants, jurisdiction must be established as to each party. This requirement remains in law as a matter of statutory interpretation, not constitutional law.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 7

References

1. ^ 7 U.S. 267 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)