Legal Opinion
Marshall v. Marshall
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided May 1, 2006No. 04-1544PublishedCited by 673 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Ginsburg
In Cohens v. Virginia, Chief Justice Marshall famously cautioned: “It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. . . . We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to *299usurp that which is not given.” 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821). Among longstanding limitations on federal jurisdiction otherwise properly exercised are the so-called “domestic relations” and “probate” exceptions. Neither is compelled by the text of the Constitution or federal statute. Both are…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Cohens v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Ankenbrandt Ex Rel. L. R. v. RichardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- McClellan v. CarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Durfee v. DukeSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by673 opinions
- Stern v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Union Pacific R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Central RegionSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Sykes v. Cook County Circuit Court Probate DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016
- Kowalski v. BolikerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018
- Bankruptcy Services, Inc. v. Ernst & Young (In Re CBI Holding Co.)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
668 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.