Cases by Issue - Miscellaneous

JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-651

Petitioner

JPMorgan Chase Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

536 U.S. 88 (2002)

Argued

Wednesday, April 17, 2002

Decided

Monday, June 10, 2002

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner)

Sarah L. Reid (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Craig J. Albert (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands (BVI), an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. In 1998, Chase Manhattan Bank, now JPMorgan Chase Bank, agreed to finance certain Traffic Stream ventures, with the contract to be governed by New York law and with Traffic Stream agreeing to submit to the jurisdiction of federal courts in Manhattan. Subsequently, Chase sued Traffic Stream for defaulting on its obligations. The District Court found subject-matter jurisdiction under the alienage diversity statute, 28 USC section 1332(a)(2), which gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions where the controversy is "between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state," and granted Chase summary judgment. In reversing, the Court of Appeals found that, because Traffic Stream was a citizen of an Overseas Territory and not an independent foreign state, jurisdiction was lacking.

Question

Is a corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands a "citizen or subject of a foreign state" for the purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for JPMorgan Chase Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1332

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that a corporation organized under the laws of the BVI is a "citizen or subject of a foreign state" for the purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that, because of the United Kingdom's retention and exercise of authority over the BVI, statutes permitting incorporation in the BVI are enacted in the exercise of the United Kingdom's political authority. "It is enough to hold that the United Kingdom's retention and exercise of authority over the BVI renders BVI citizens, both natural and juridic, 'citizens or subjects' of the United Kingdom," wrote Justice Souter. Thus, Traffic Stream was a citizen or subject of a foreign state for the purposes of alienage diversity jurisdiction.

Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipestringing, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-1909

Petitioner

Murphy Brothers, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Michetti Pipestringing, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

526 U.S. 344 (1999)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1999

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1999

Advocates

J. David Pugh (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Deborah A. Smith (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

On January 26, 1996, Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc. (Michetti), filed a complaint in Alabama state court seeking damages for an alleged breach of contract and fraud by Murphy Bros., Inc. (Murphy). Michetti did not serve Murphy then, but three days later it faxed a "courtesy copy" of the complaint to a Murphy vice president. Michetti officially served Murphy under local law by certified mail on February 12, 1996. On March 13, 1996, 30 days after service but 44 days after receiving the faxed copy of the complaint, Murphy removed the case under 28 U. S. C. ?1441 to the Federal District Court. Michetti moved to remand the case to the state court on the ground that Murphy filed the removal notice 14 days too late under 28 U. S. C. ?1446(b), which specifies that the notice "shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the [complaint]." Michetti asserted that the removal was untimely because the notice had not been filed within 30 days of the date on which Murphy's vice president received the facsimile transmission. The District Court denied the remand motion on the ground that the 30-day removal period did not commence until Murphy was officially served with a summons. On an interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, instructing the District Court to remand the action to state court. The court held that the defendant's receipt of a faxed copy of the filed initial pleading sufficed to commence the 30-day removal period, emphasizing the statutory words "receipt...or otherwise."

Question

Is the time limit in which a named defendant may remove a state-court action to a federal court, as set forth in 28 U. S. C. ?1446(b), triggered by the mere receipt of a complaint unattended by any formal service?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Murphy Brothers, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1446

No. In a 6-3 decision, delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a named defendant's time to remove a state-court action to a federal court is triggered by the simultaneous service of the summons and complaint, or receipt of the complaint, "through service or otherwise," after and apart from service of the summons, but not by the mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service. Justice Ginsburg wrote for that Court that, "[i]t would take a clearer statement than Congress has made to read its endeavor to extend removal time...to effect so strange a change_to set removal apart from all other responsive acts, to render removal the sole instance in which one's procedural rights slip away before service of a summons."

Northern Pipeline Const. v. Marathon Pipe Line

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-150

Appellee

Marathon Pipe Line

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Northern Pipeline Const.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 81-546

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 50 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1982

Advocates

Melvin I. Orenstein (Argued the cause for the appellee, Marathon Pipe Line)

John L. Devney (Argued the cause for the appellant, Northern Pipeline Construction)

Rex E. Lee (Argued the cause for the United States in both cases)

Facts of the Case

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 created a system of bankruptcy courts as an adjunct to the federal system of district courts. This case was decided together with United States v. Marathon Pipeline Co.

Question

Did the Act violate Article III of the Constitution?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Marathon Pipe Line, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 1, Paragraph 2: Good Behavior and Compensation Clause of Federal Judges

Yes. A plurality held that Congress had essentially conferred Article III powers to an adjunct system of courts and, consequently, "impermissibly removed most, if not all, of the essential attributes of the judicial power" from the district courts.

Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-465

Petitioner

Navarro Savings Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

446 U.S. 458 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, March 18, 1980

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Lee, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Crist v. Bretz

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1200

Appellee

Bretz

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Crist

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 28 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, November 1, 1977

Reargued:

Wednesday, March 22, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 14, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bretz, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Palmore v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-11

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Palmore

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 389 (1973)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, April 24, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17: Governance of the District of Columbia and Lands Purchased from the States

None

Steelworkers v. Bouligny, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Steelworkers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bouligny, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

382 U.S. 145 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, October 21, 1965

Decided

Monday, November 22, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bouligny, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2: Extent of Judicial Power

None

U.S. v. American-Foreign Ss. Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

138

Petitioner

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American-Foreign Ss. Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

363 U.S. 685 (1960)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for U.S., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 46

None

Smith v. Sperling

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

316

Petitioner

Smith

Respondent

Sperling

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

354 U.S. 91 (1957)

Argued

March 27-28, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Smith, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Swanson v. Traer

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

149

Petitioner

Swanson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Traer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

354 U.S. 114 (1957)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Swanson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None