Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co.

Last updated
Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Company
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 19, 1910
Decided November 28, 1910
Full case nameHarvey Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Company
Citations218 U.S. 357 ( more )
31 S. Ct. 81; 54 L. Ed. 1069
Holding
A Circuit Court of the United States does not have jurisdiction over a suit where both plaintiff and defendant are an out of state citizens
Court membership
Chief Justice
vacant
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan  · Edward D. White
Joseph McKenna  · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day  · Horace H. Lurton
Charles E. Hughes
Case opinion
MajorityHarlan, joined by unanimous

Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Company, 218 U.S. 357 (1910), was a United States Supreme Court case involving jurisdiction over a suit involving a citizen from another state beyond the Court's jurisdiction, suing a New Jersey Corporation, another out of state citizen. The Court asserted that under the statute jurisdiction was improper because neither party was a citizen in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. [1] The Court followed the decision in Wetmore v. Tennessee Copper Company another case decided later that same year.

Related Research Articles

Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a legal body to administer justice within a defined field of responsibility, e.g., Michigan tax law. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels; e.g. the court has jurisdiction to apply federal law.

Personal jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction over the parties to a lawsuit, as opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law and facts involved in the suit. If a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a party, its rulings or decrees cannot be enforced upon that party, except by comity; i.e., to the extent that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the party allows the court to enforce them upon that party. A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the authority to rule on the law and facts of a suit and the power to enforce its decision upon a party to the suit. In some cases, territorial jurisdiction may also constrain a court's reach, such as preventing hearing of a case concerning events occurring on foreign territory between two citizens of the home jurisdiction.

Article Three of the United States Constitution portion of the US Constitution regarding the judicial branch

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution US constitution amendment dealing with each states sovereign immunity

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution 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 in federal court.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution An amendment addressing citizenship as well as civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments to this day, the amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation". In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian, or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection. For example, some children, incapacitated individuals, and disabled individuals lack parents who are able and willing to render adequate care, thus requiring state intervention.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Diversity jurisdiction U.S. court jurisdiction over persons of different states or nationalities

In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction in civil procedure in which a United States district court in the federal judiciary has the power to hear a civil case when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and where the persons that are parties are "diverse" in citizenship or state of incorporation, which generally indicates that they differ in state and/or nationality. Diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction constitute the two primary categories of subject matter jurisdiction in U.S. federal courts.

Amount in controversy is a term used in civil procedure to denote the amount at stake in a lawsuit, in particular in connection with a requirement that persons seeking to bring a lawsuit in a particular court must be suing for a certain minimum amount before that court may hear the case.

Case or Controversy Clause Clause of the U.S. Constitution regarding judicial review

The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review.

Removal jurisdiction

In the United States, removal jurisdiction sometimes exists for the defendant to move a civil action filed in a state court to the United States district court in the district in which the state court is located. A federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441et seq., governs removal.

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996), held that federal jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship can be sustained even if there did not exist complete diversity at the time of removal to federal court, so long as complete diversity exists at the time the district court enters judgment.

Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous court struck down a Louisiana statute for violating an individual's liberty of contract. It was the first case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the word liberty in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to mean economic liberty. The decision marked the beginning of the Lochner era, during which the Supreme Court struck many state regulations for infringing on an individual's right to contract. The Lochner era lasted forty years, until West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish was decided in 1937.

Wetmore v. Tennessee Copper Company, 218 U.S. 369 (1910), was a United States Supreme Court case involving jurisdiction over a suit involving a wealthy landowner from Rhode Island, U.S. Senator George P. Wetmore, suing a New Jersey Corporation for emitting toxic fumes onto land he owned in Tennessee. The Court followed its precedent in Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Company, in asserting that jurisdiction was improper because neither party was a citizen in the jurisdiction of the Circuit court, but jurisdiction was proper over the foreign British corporation that was joined to the suit.

Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976), is an opinion from the United States Supreme Court which denied a motion from the State of Arizona seeking authorization to file suit against the State of New Mexico by invoking the original jurisdiction of the court.

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, 241 U.S. 518 (1916), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a court can exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident party in an interpleader if that party is served with process while physically present within the state.

Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States

The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States is limited to a small class of cases described in Article III, section 2, of the United States Constitution, and further delineated by statute.

The Copper Basin, also known as the Ducktown Basin, is a geological region located primarily in Polk County, Tennessee that contains deposits of copper ore and covers approximately 60,000 acres. Located in the southeastern corner of Tennessee, small portions of the basin extend into Fannin County, Georgia and Cherokee County, North Carolina. The basin is surrounded by the Cherokee National Forest and the cities of Ducktown and Copperhill, Tennessee and McCaysville, Georgia are located in the basin.

References

  1. Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co., 218 U.S. 357 (1910).