Legal Opinion
Ostrow v. Samuel Brilliant Co.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided June 11, 1946No. Civ. A. 4211PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SWEENEY, District Judge.
This is an action for damages brought by the plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, against the defendant, a Massachusetts corporation. No basis of jurisdiction, other than diversity of citizenship, has been alleged in the complaint. The Court raises the jurisdictional question of its own motion. Brady v. Bernard & Kittinger, 6 Cir., 170 F. 576, 579; Prescott v. Richards, D.C., 58 F.Supp. 10.
It has been consistently held that a citizen of the District of Columbia is not a citizen of a State within the meaning of the constitutional provisions relating to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hepburn & Dundas v. EllzeySupreme Court of the United States · 1805
- Hooe v. JamiesonSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- McGarry v. City of BethlehemDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1942
- Brady v. Bernard & KittingerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Winkler v. DanielsDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- National Mutual Insurance v. Tidewater Transfer Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Central States Co-Ops. v. Watson Bros. Transp. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1947
- Wilson v. GuggenheimDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1947
- Feely v. Sidney S. Schupper Interstate Hauling System, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1947
- National Mut. Ins. v. Tidewater Transfer Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1947
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.