Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis | 519 U.S. 61 (1996) Article three, section two, of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power to authorize federal court diversity jurisdiction. The statute enabling diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity, meaning no plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant. In Caterpillar Incorporated versus Lewis, the United States Supreme Court considered a case in which the district court messed up and asserted federal jurisdiction over a lawsuit lacking complete diversity. In June 1989, James Lewis, a Kentucky resident, filed a product-liability suit in Kentucky state court related to injuries he suffered while operating a bulldozer. Lewis sued Caterpillar, a Delaware corporation and the manufacturer of the bulldozer, and Whayne Supply Company, the Kentucky corporation that serviced the bulldozer. Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, a Massachusetts company, intervened in the lawsuit, bringing a subrogation claim for workers’ compensation benefits that Liberty had paid to Lewis on behalf of Lewis’s employer. Less than one year after filing the lawsuit, Lewis settled with Whayne Supply. Caterpillar then removed the case to federal district court. Lewis objected to the removal and sought remand, arguing that complete diversity was lacking because Whayne Supply was still a party to the lawsuit through Liberty’s subrogation claim. The district court denied the remand motion. The lawsuit proceeded in federal court, and Liberty and Whayne Supply eventually settled Liberty’s subrogation claim. Whayne Supply was dismissed. But Lewis’s claim against Caterpillar went to trial and resulted in a jury verdict for Caterpillar. Lewis appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which vacated the district court’s judgment, finding that at the time the case was removed to federal court, Whayne Supply was still a defendant and complete diversity was lacking. Caterpillar appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted cert. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/caterpi... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/caterpi... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries