Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The fact that, against completely diverse defendants, Woodrock and Jones could combine their claims to meet the amount in controversy is inconsequential, because the parties lack diversity of citizenship.
9. There are several factors that should be taken into consideration in deciding whether the District of Columbia can, for diversity purposes, be regarded as a state. The most important factor is whether the constitutional diversity requirement would have a substantive impact on the litigants seeking redress in a certain type of court. Because citizens of the District of Columbia are already entitled to bring suit in federal courts, allowing them to be considered citizens of a state for the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction does not allow them entry into a different court system. Even more important is the fact that the legislature enacted a law that permitted the District of Columbia and other U.S. territories...
Based upon this law, which expands the definition of the word state in the Constitution, it seems clear that the D.C. should be considered a state for diversity jurisdiction purposes. To bolster that idea, it is important to keep in mind that when the Constitution was written, the U.S. did not hold territories; even D.C. had not yet been created. Therefore, at the time it was written, the constitutional language referring to states would have covered all U.S. citizens living in U.S. territory. It seems unlikely that the founding fathers would have desired to exclude those living in D.C., who were most likely to be people working for the government, from the general protections granted to most Americans. Taken together, these concepts support the notion that a person from D.C. should be treated like a state citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
The Court said there was no evidence to suggest that any teacher under the program and question had attempted to inculcate religion in students. Moreover, the cooperation required between the parochial school employees and the public employees regarding student progress was the same, regardless of the location of the classes. The Court determined that it did "not see any perceptible (let alone dispositive) difference in the degree of symbolic
Alberty, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in Defendant's favor, holding that under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 29, 146 et seq. And 467 et seq., there was no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiff was an "independent contractor," not an "employee." The issue on appeal was whether there
Metal Workers Employment Law Case Review One of the primary functions of the judiciary is to clearly define the parameters of legislative intent, as the passage of any law necessarily creates parties with a vested interest in bypassing or overturning the statute, and in the case of Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC 478 U.S. 421 (1986) the Supreme Court was again tasked with assessing the validity of a
SEC v Materia Securities and Exchange Commission v. Anthony Materia 745 F.2d 197 (1984) Facts Anthony Materia, an employee of the printing business Bowne in New York City, had been entrusted with financial documentation containing sensitive information. Although the actual names of the corporations discussed in the documents were missing, enough details remained to allow Materia to deduce which companies were the targets of upcoming purchase bids. Materia then used this confidential information to
Com" from an Internet host in Maryland to a host in New York. The New York host turned out to be merely an intermediary of a Canada-based company (Tucows). Tucows eventually turned over the domain name to the Alabama authorities upon their request. Thereafter, Novak appealed the decision in the Alabama case successfully and then filed an action against Tucows for illegally depriving him of his property by conversion. Tucows' defense
The website explained that the law's necessities turned on a person's finding of guilt alone a fact that a person had already had a procedurally protected occasion to challenge. Even if the person could show that he was not liable to be presently harmful, Connecticut had determined that the registry knowledge of all sex offenders had to be openly revealed. The offender had relied only on procedural due process,