The Eleventh Amendment is an amendment to the United States Constitution which was passed by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795. The Eleventh Amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states of which they are not citizens in federal court.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. Since the case was argued prior to the formal pronouncement of judicial review by Marbury v. Madison (1803), there was little available legal precedent. The Court in a 4–1 decision ruled in favor of Alexander Chisholm, executor of an estate of a citizen of South Carolina, holding that Article III, Section 2 grants federal courts jurisdiction in cases between a state and a citizen of another state wherein the state is the defendant.
In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, federal courts will normally lack the jurisdiction to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions. In reaching this holding, the Court overturned almost a century of federal civil procedure case law, and established the foundation of the modern law of diversity jurisdiction.
New York v. Connecticut, 4 U.S. 1 (1799), was a lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court of the United States between the State of New York against the State of Connecticut in 1799 that arose from a land dispute between private parties. The case was the first case in which the Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution to hear controversies between two states.
This is a list of cases reported in volume 2 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1791 to 1793. Case reports from other federal and state tribunals also appear in 2 U.S..
This is a list of cases reported in volume 3 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1794 to 1799. Case reports from other tribunals also appear in 3 U.S..
This is a list of cases reported in volume 4 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1799 and 1800. Case reports from other tribunals also appear in 4 U.S..
Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the jurisdiction of the court extended to the seas and that a citizen of the United States could also hold the citizenship of another polity. This holding means that multiple citizenship may be held by Americans.
Bingham v. Cabot may refer to the following Supreme Court of the United States cases:
Bingham v. Cabot, 3 U.S. 19 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Cabot family, a wealthy Yankee shipping family from New England. In the case the court held in a mixed seriatim opinion:
On the return of the record the following errors were assigned, the defendant in error pleaded in nullo est erratum, and issue was thereupon joined:
- That judgment had been given for the plaintiff, instead of the defendant below, on the 3rd Count.
- That the circuit court, proceeding as a court of common law, in an action on the case, for money had and received, etc., had no jurisdiction of the cause; the question, as it appears on the record, being a question of prize, or no prize, or wholly dependent thereon, and, as such, it was, exclusively of admiralty jurisdiction.
- That the evidence referred to in the bill of exceptions ought not to have been rejected on the trial of the cause.
The judges, after some advisement, delivered their opinions seriatim.
United States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. 17 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a defendant committed on a charge of treason was released on bail, despite having been imprisoned upon a warrant of committal by a district court judge. The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that "upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law." Ordinarily, habeas corpus was used to release prisoners held by the judgment of the executive, but not for those whose commitment had been authorized by a court order. Hamilton's attorney argued that the district court judge did not hold a hearing before issuing a warrant for his commitment to jail and that the affidavits alleging treasonous activity were weak, while the government urged that the Judiciary Act did not give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to review the district court's decision unless there was new information or misconduct. The Supreme Court set bail, but without addressing either attorney's arguments.
Turner v. Enrille, 4 U.S. 7 (1799), was a 1799 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court "affirmed the decision in Bingham v. Cabot, et al. and reversed the judgment because the record did not show the alienage of the plaintiff below, nor the citizenship of the defendants."
Knox v. Greenleaf, 4 U.S. 360, is a ruling by the United States Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania which held that, under the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790, citizenship of the state is conferred upon moving to the state and paying taxes.
Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified whether Fannie Mae can be sued in state courts. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that plaintiffs may file lawsuits against Fannie Mae in any state or federal court that is "already endowed with subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit."
Frank v. Gaos, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a per curiam decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case concerning the practice of cy pres settlements in class action lawsuits. Following oral argument, the court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the parties had Article III standing to pursue the case in federal courts. Supplemental briefing was completed on December 21, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
