Strawbridge v. Curtiss

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" | 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, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332(a)(1), there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants | holding that, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332(a)(1), there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants | holding that for diversity jurisdiction each plaintiff in a case must be a citizen of a different state from each defendant | 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, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332(a)(1), there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants | holding that, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332(a)(1), there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and 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 | holding that Article III prohibits oendent party jurisdiction | requiring complete diversity — that each plaintiff is from a different state than each defendant | requiring that no plaintiff share citizenship with any defendant | requiring that no plaintiff share citizenship with any defendant | interpreting the language of the general federal diversity statute to require complete diversity | noting the "evident purpose of section 1367(b) is to prevent an "evasion of the requirement of complete diversity of citizenship" | noting that to satisfy diversity, not only must a plaintiff be a citizen of a state other than the state of which one defendant is a citizen, but also, under the rule of “complete diversity,” no plaintiff may share the same state citizenship with any defendant | requiring complete diversity under the predecessor statute to § 1332(a)(1) | interpreting the language of the general federal diversity statute to require complete diversity | meaning of “complete diversity” now required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) | Justice Marshall concluding that Congress intended there would be no diversity jurisdiction when opposing parties were citizens of the same state | “[WJhere the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue, or liable to be sued in [the federal] courts.” | "[W]here the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue, or liable to be sued in [the federal] courts." | overruled on other grounds, Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston R. Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 497, 555, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844) | where there is more than one defendant, plaintiff must be capable of suing each defendant | no 4 plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants | all parties in a suit must be entitled to sue or be sued in federal court | no 15 plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants | “Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties—each defendant must be a citizen of