Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Strawbridge v. Curtiss
7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1806-02-13
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- holding that the diversity statute requires that the citizenship of all plaintiffs be different from the citizenship of all defendants
- holding that for diversity jurisdiction each plaintiff in a case must be a citizen of a different state from each defendant
- concluding that, under the federal diversity, "each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom are entitled to sue, or may be sued, in the federal courts"
- holding that, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332(a)(1), there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants
- holding that the diversity statute requires that the citizenship of all plaintiffs be different from 6 No. 17-2343 the citizenship of all defendants
- holding that diversity jurisdiction requires that all plaintiffs be completely diverse from all defendants
- requiring that no plaintiff share common citizenship with any defendant for diversity jurisdiction to exist under federal law
- requiring that all plaintiffs and all defendants must be diverse for jurisdiction to exist under federal law
Citator
Strawbridge v. Curtiss is no longer good law, at least in part: overruled by Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Railway v. Letson, 43 U.S. 497 (1844). 1,966 later decisions cite it, 1 of them negatively.
- Authority status
- negative
- Cited by
- 1966 opinions
- Negative treatment
- 1 citing opinion
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.