Subject matter jurisdiciton - diversity of corporate citizenship

Question 1

28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c) (1) corporations business diversity jurisdiction

Answer 1

(1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business, except that in any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to which action the insured is not joined as a party-defendant, such insurer shall be deemed a citizen of–
(A) every State and foreign state of which the insured is a citizen;
(B) every State and foreign state by which the insurer has been incorporated; and
(C) the State or foreign state where the insurer has its principal place of business; and

Question 2

Hertz v Friend 2010 principal business diversity jurisdiction

Answer 2

Issue
The primary issue was how to determine a corporation’s “principal place of business” for the purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Specifically, the case sought to resolve the conflicting interpretations among the Circuit Courts regarding whether a corporation’s principal place of business should be identified based on the volume of business activities in a state or the location of its corporate decision-making center (“nerve center”).

Holding
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporation’s “principal place of business” is the location where its high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities, often referred to as the corporation’s “nerve center.” Typically, this will be the corporation’s headquarters, as long as it is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, and not merely an office where the corporation holds board meetings.

Question 3

corporation citizen of a state

Answer 3

if more than half of its gross income

Question 4

Hertz test

Answer 4

nerve center is the corporation headquarters test for principle place of business

Question 5

Diefenthal v CAB 1982 corporation diversity jurisdicition

Answer 5

Issue
The primary issue was whether the CAB had the statutory authority under the Federal Aviation Act to regulate smoking on aircraft. Secondary issues involved whether the Diefenthals had a right to injunctive relief against Eastern Airlines for its alleged breach of contract and tortious conduct, and whether their claims met the jurisdictional requirements for federal court.
Holding
The Fifth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the CAB did indeed have the statutory authority under the Federal Aviation Act to regulate smoking on aircraft. Furthermore, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Diefenthals’ claims against Eastern Airlines for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the required jurisdictional amount for federal court.

Question 6

75,000 Diversity Defendants

Answer 6

The plaintiff must prove each defendant has a claim of $75,000. It can not add up tp $75000 among defendants

Question 7

what is the well pleaded rule

Answer 7

determines if a federal court has jurisdiction over a case focusing on the plaintiff’s complaint

Question 8

demurred

Answer 8

means the defendant can claim that legally sufficient a law doesn’t provide a remedy for the conduct alleged.

Question 9

42 § USC 1983

Answer 9

Violation of civil rights

Question 10

Justice Holmes Creation Test

Answer 10

looks at a case arises under law that create a cause of action
or
In Motley case Justice Holmes looks at cause of law of action was contract law

Determines the cour that personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant.