Strawbridge v. Curtiss
Strawbridge v. Curtiss is a landmark case in United States legal history, notable for its interpretation of diversity jurisdiction under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Decided by Chief Justice John Marshall, the case established foundational principles regarding the federal judiciary's authority to adjudicate controversies involving citizens from different states. The ruling, delivered with a 6-0 majority, emphasized that for federal courts to have jurisdiction, there must be "complete diversity" among the parties involved—meaning that all plaintiffs must be citizens of different states from all defendants. This decision highlighted the importance of jurisdictional clarity and adherence to the guidelines set forth in the 1789 Judiciary Act. As a result, Strawbridge v. Curtiss set a precedent that continues to shape how federal courts handle cases involving parties from different states, underscoring the ongoing significance of diversity jurisdiction in the American legal system. This case remains a critical reference point for legal scholars and practitioners dealing with issues of federal court jurisdiction.
Strawbridge v. Curtiss
Date: February 13, 1806
Citation: 7 U.S. 267
Issue: Diversity jurisdiction
Significance: The Supreme Court established the rule of complete diversity in federal courts.
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion for the 6-0 majority, interpreting the command in Article III of the Constitution that the federal judiciary shall cover controversies “between the citizens of different states.” This case raised the question of diversity jurisdiction for the first time. Marshall relied on the 1789 Judiciary Act rather than the Constitution in deciding that all parties to a lawsuit must have an adequate basis for jurisdiction to enter federal court. This still valid judgment means that all parties on one side must be diverse from all parties on the other side (or completely diverse) in federal courts as a practical matter.
