1/4
midterm
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
|---|
No study sessions yet.
overview
This case involved a company based in three different states, one of which is not U.S. territory.
The key issue was whether the U.S. courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.
issue
The primary question was whether jurisdiction existed in U.S. courts given the diversity of the states involved.
rule applied
The ruling established that U.S. courts can have jurisdiction over cases involving parties connected to different states, including those not considered U.S. territories.
procedural posture
The case was brought before the U.S. courts to determine the applicability of subject matter jurisdiction based on the diverse state connections.
holding
The court held that it could hear the case, confirming that subject matter jurisdiction was established.