Legal Opinion · Dissent

Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided May 19, 1980No. 79-465Published

1DissentJustice Blackmun

A reader of the Court’s conclusory opinion might wonder why this heavily burdened tribunal chose to review this case. Most assuredly, we did not do so merely to reaffirm, ante, at 462, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling from the bench in Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306, 308 (1808), to the effect that aliens serving respectively as residuary legatee and representative of an estate, “although they sue as trustees,” were entitled to bring a federal diversity action against a Georgia citizen. Rather, I had thought that we granted cer-tiorari to resolve a significant conflict among the…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Morrissey v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Company v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  4. Hecht v. MalleySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  5. United Steelworkers of America v. R. H. Bouligny, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API