Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

This is a situation or requirement in which no party on one side of the litigation can be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side of the litigation. This is usually an issue in federal lawsuits that invoke diversity jurisdiction.

In Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806), the Court held that the diversity of citizenship statute required 'complete diversity': where co-citizens appeared on both sides of a dispute, jurisdiction as lost. But Chief Justice Marshall there purported to construe only 'The words of the act of congress,' not the Constitution itself. 

Subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court indicate that Strawbridge is not to be given an expansive reading. See, e.g., 43 U. S. 556. And, in a variety of contexts, the Supreme Court and the lower courts have concluded that Article III poses no obstacle to the legislative extension of federal jurisdiction, founded on diversity, so long as any two adverse parties are not co-citizens. See, e.g., American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6, 341 U. S. 10, n. 3 (1951), and Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, 103 U. S. 213 ...

Register or login to access full content