Federal Court Authority, Introduction to Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and the Concept of Diversity of State Citizenship

Question 1

Marbury v Madison 1803 Subject matter jurisdiction

Answer 1

The central legal issue was whether Marbury had a right to the commission he was denied and, if so, whether the law provided him a remedy. Furthermore, the case questioned whether the Supreme Court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus in this situation.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that Marbury had a right to his commission but the Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus (Court order) to enforce it. This decision established the principle of judicial review, affirming the Court’s power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

Question 2

What is redress

Answer 2

make a wrong -right

Question 3

what does it mean for a person to be a citizen of a state?

Answer 3

a person domicile

Question 4

Diversity Jurisdiction

Answer 4

Can not be claimed if any party is from the same state.

Question 5

is a corporation a citizen or a state?

Answer 5

corporation location is a state and any other offices where that business is doing business

Question 6

Domicile test

Answer 6

determines a person citizen of a state

Question 7

Gordon v Steel 1974 diversity jurisdiction

Answer 7

The central issue in this case was whether Susan Gordon could establish herself as a citizen of Idaho, rather than Pennsylvania, at the time of filing the lawsuit to satisfy the diversity jurisdiction requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This determination hinged on whether Gordon had effectively changed her domicile from Pennsylvania to Idaho by the time she filed her lawsuit.
Holding
The court held that Susan Gordon was a citizen of Idaho for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, thus denying the motion to dismiss for lack of diversity.

Question 8

animo manedi

Answer 8

is the intention of your stay in determining ones domicile

Question 9

Mas v Perry 1974 diversity jurisdiciton

Answer 9

Issue
The primary legal issue concerns federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, specifically whether the federal district court had jurisdiction over the case given the citizenship status of the parties involved. Perry challenged the jurisdiction, questioning the diversity of citizenship among the parties and whether the jurisdictional amount for Mr. Mas’s claim was met.

Holding
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the federal court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court found that Mrs. Mas was a citizen of Mississippi and Mr. Mas was a citizen of France, thus satisfying the diversity of citizenship requirement. Additionally, the jurisdictional amount for Mr. Mas’s claim was deemed satisfactory.

Question 10

Plaintiff needs to prove three things :

Answer 10

1. Personal jurisdiction - the power of the court to exercise power
2. Subject matter jurisdiction
   (Diversity) no P and D can reside in the same state (fed question ) must arise under federal law
3. Venue is the designation of the proper geographic district in which to bring action.

Question 11

Burden of proof

Answer 11

is always on the Plaintiff

Question 12

Domicile the court look at

Answer 12

personal taxes, political parties, drivers license etc…