Basics of Federal Jurisdiction
Judge Posner is beside himself about the inability of certain lawyers to understand the finer points of diversity jurisdiction. Sadly, though, ignorance of basic rules of federal jurisdiction known to every 1L appears to be surprisingly common. I’ve already had two cases that we dismissed because we lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
One involved a resident of our state who slipped and fell in a business establishment in a pretty-far-away state. Her attorney had the diversity thing more or less in hand, but the Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodsen minimum contacts problem seemed beyond her. Never mind that this is the first topic covered in almost every Civil Procedure class. The only contact she alleged with our state was the existence of the defendant’s website, which was accessible from here. Um…no.
So Judge Posner should consider himself lucky that in the rarified air of the Court of Appeals, he’s spared at least some of the most egregious lawyerly failings.
Butterflyfish said,
December 6, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
“Sure, the plaintiffs should have said the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, not that it is $75,000.”
I know my prof would have “had a cow” had any of us misstated that rule. Great link. Thanks for that.
juliloquy said,
December 8, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Hi! I didn’t realize you were still doing a blog, but curiosity vanity got me to you. Nice to find you!