Case BriefCiv Pro Unit B (federal question jurisdiction)1/17/15Identity of CaseLousiville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)Page 92 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistoryPlaintiff Mottleys had lifetime free rides from the railroad, renewable every year, as part of a valid contract to settle their claims against the railroad for some personal injury or other. Congress passed a bill forbidding free rides. Defendants declined to renew the passes. Mottley’s brought suit to enforce the contract, in federal court because they believed they had a federal question. RR said no federal question,TC judgment in Mottley’s favor, appealed all the way up to SCOTUS who declined to decide whether the law excused performance of the contract because the federal court did not have jurisdiction (no diversitycitizenship, no federal question). Statement of the IssueIs citing federal issues as anticipated defenses to your claim sufficient to eget your trial into federal court under federal question jurisdiction? HoldingIn order to qualify under federal question jurisdiction, a claim must arise under federal or constitutional law. ReasoningThis means that the violations alleged in the complain infringe on rights guaranteed by the federal gov’t. Contract law is state law. fEderal-gov’t based defenses are insufficient to move it inuto federal court. Evaluation Mottley’s resued in state court, eventually it was appealed back up to
View Full Document
Unlocking...