Citation network
Smith Vs. Sperling
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 1957
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 91 (1957) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. SperlingSearch
-
U.S. 91 (1957) Smith v. SperlingSearch
-
to the stockholder within the meaning of that term as used in Doctor v. HarringtonSearch
-
would be no diversity of citizenship, since Delaware corporations would be on both sides of the lawsuit. Strawbridge v. CurtissSearch
-
assertion by a stockholder of that cause of action is not the question here. Such was the problem involved in Hawes v. OaklandSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of conduct which he attacks. The charge normally is cast in terms of fraud, breach of trust, or illegality. See Doctor v. HarringtonSearch
-
Venner v. GreatSearch
-
for it has been over eight years in the courts on this question of jurisdiction. Since our decision in Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
U. S. 64 , the law which governs the merits in these derivative actions is local law. Cohen v. BeneficialSearch
-
The bill and answer normally determine whether the management is antagonistic to the stockholder, as Central R. Co. v. MillsSearch
-
U. S. 249 , and Doctor v. HarringtonSearch
-
and so on. As the Court said in Delaware & Hudson Co. v. AlbanySearch
-
defeat jurisdiction. Absent collusion, there is diversity jurisdiction when the real collision of issues, Indianapolis v. ChaseSearch
-
National Bank, 314 U. S. 63 , 314 U. S. 69 , or, as stated in Helm v. ZarecorSearch
-
the representative which would have been determinative of jurisdiction in this diversity case. See Chappedelaine v. DechenauxSearch
-
Mexican Central R. Co. v. EckmanSearch
-
Mecom v. FitzsimmonsSearch
-
U. S. 186 . But jurisdiction, once attached, is not impaired by a party's later change of domicile. Mullen v. TorranceSearch
-
is brought, is applied to a situation where a party dies and a non-diverse representative is substituted. Dunn v. ClarkeSearch
-
Hawes v. OaklandSearch
-
Delaware & Hudson Co. v. AlbanySearch
-
The Court in Doctor v. HarringtonSearch
-
Id., p, 196 U. S. 588 . The leading case cited by the Court was Hawes v. OaklandSearch
-
so that it may be made to appear that the diversity of citizenship necessary for federal jurisdiction exists. Detroit v. DeanSearch
-
To sustain diversity jurisdiction, there must exist an 'actual,' Helm v. ZarecorSearch
-
U. S. 32 , 222 U. S. 36 , 'substantial,' Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v. IronSearch
-
whom on one side of the controversy are citizens of different states from all parties on the other side. Strawbridge v. CurtissSearch
-
federal courts, to 'look beyond the pleadings and arrange the parties according to their sides in the dispute.' Dawson v. ColumbiaSearch
-
Indianapolis v. ChaseSearch
-
and leading case dealing with the alignment of parties for jurisdictional purposes in a stockholder's suit is Doctor v. HarringtonSearch
-
F.Supp. 781, 802. This has been the view that this Court has consistently taken since Doctor v. HarringtonSearch
-
Three years later, Doctor v. HarringtonSearch
-
was reaffirmed and its basis made clear in Venner v. GreatSearch
-
U. S. 31 -32. Page 354 U. S. 103 To make explicit the case's relation to the prior case of Doctor v. HarringtonSearch
-
of Doctor v. HarringtonSearch
-
Id. at 209 U. S. 32 -33. The jurisdictional doctrine of Doctor v. HarringtonSearch
-
as reaffirmed and elaborated in Venner v. GreatSearch
-
Northern R. Co., was accepted without question only ten years ago in Koster v. LumbermensSearch
-
on the plaintiff's side . . . , and jurisdiction would be ousted. Indianapolis v. ChaseSearch
-
is saved in this class of cases by a special dispensation, because the corporation is in antagonistic hands. Doctor v. HarringtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial