Baker v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

I dissent as to the holding that the Special Fund is an arm or alter ego of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The Special Fund’s status is such that it would not destroy diversity jurisdiction if allowed to intervene in this case. Therefore. I would affirm the district court’s order allowing the Special Fund to intervene. Because diversity exists, however. I agree that the district court’s order remanding the case should be reversed.

This court has applied various factors to determine whether an entity is the arm or alter ego of the state for diversity purposes. In Geeslin v. Merriman, 527 F.2d…