Shulthis v. McDougal
Citations
- 225 U.S. 561
- 32 S. Ct. 704
- 56 L. Ed. 1205
- 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2104
Syllabus
<p>Where a petition of intervention is entertained and disposed of in virtue of jurisdiction already invoked, if the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final in respect of the original suit, it is equally so in respect of the intervention.</p> <p>Whether jurisdiction depends alone on diverse citizenship or on other grounds as well, must be determined from complainant’s own statement, in the bill of his cause of action, regardless of what may be brought into the suit by answer or in subsequent proceedings.</p> <p>Jurisdiction of the Federal court can only rest on grounds distinctly and affirmatively set forth; grounds of jurisdiction, other than those of diverse citizenship alleged, cannot be inferred argumentatively from statements in the bill.</p> <p>A case is not one arising under the laws of the United States unless it ■ really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or cifcct of such a law upon the determination whereof the result depends. This rule applies peculiarly to suits respecting rights to land acquired under laws of the United States; otherwise all suits to establish title to land which had been part of the public domain would be cognizable in the Federal courts.</p> <p>The fact that the controversy might have arisen under the laws of the United States does not give the Federal court jurisdiction, if the bill does not allege the facts in that particular, and the controversy might have arisen in another way independent of those laws.</p> <p>A corporation which was organized in the Indian Territory while the statutes of Arkansas were, under authority of Congress, in force in that Territory is not for that reason a Federal corporation, but is to be regarded for jurisdictional purposes as one of Oklahoma. Kansas Pacific B. B. Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa F6 B. B. Co., 112 U ' S. 414.</p> <p>The action of Congress in putting the laws of Arkansas in force in the Indian Territory by the act of Februar
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining it is well established that “a 12 controversy in respect of lands has never been regarded as presenting a Federal question 13 merely because one of the parties to it has derived his title under an act of Congress”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Van Devanter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
338 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Weinberger v. SalfiSupreme Court· 1975-06-26· cited 2,721×
- Gunn v. MintonSupreme Court· 2013-02-20· cited 2,420×
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court· 1986-07-07· cited 2,209×
- Gully v. First Nat. Bank in MeridianSupreme Court· 1936-11-09· cited 2,167×
- Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & ManufacturingSupreme Court· 2005-06-13· cited 1,930×
- Oneida Indian Nation v. County of OneidaSupreme Court· 1974-01-21· cited 915×
- Taylor v. AndersonSupreme Court· 1914-05-25· cited 491×
- Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp.Sixth Circuit· 2007-08-21· cited 251×
- Puerto Rico v. Russell & Co.Supreme Court· 1933-03-13· cited 236×
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. ManningSupreme Court· 2016-05-16· cited 198×
- Edward L. Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, a Division of Litton Systems, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1984-01-30· cited 189×
- Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1927-02-21· cited 169×
- Smith v. McCulloughSupreme Court· 1926-04-12· cited 150×
- Robert Robbins v. Ronald Reagan Robert Robbins v. Ronald ReaganD.C. Circuit· 1985-12-10· cited 150×
- Hall v. BurrSupreme Court· 1914-06-22· cited 149×
- Pacheco De Perez v. AT&T Co.Eleventh Circuit· 1998-04-29· cited 128×
- Hopkins v. WalkerSupreme Court· 1917-06-11· cited 113×
- K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLCNinth Circuit· 2011-08-05· cited 108×
- City and County of Denver v. New York Trust Co.Supreme Court· 1913-05-26· cited 105×
- Jordine v. WallingThird Circuit· 1950-12-14· cited 99×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Osborn v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court· 1824-03-19· cited 1,899×
- Tennessee v. Union & Planters' BankSupreme Court· 1894-03-19· cited 409×
- United States v. PridgeonSupreme Court· 1894-04-16· cited 219×
- Shoshone Mining Co. v. RutterSupreme Court· 1900-04-30· cited 175×
- Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1900-01-08· cited 90×
- Pope v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1899-04-03· cited 68×
- Kansas Pacific Railroad v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe RailroadSupreme Court· 1884-10-01· cited 67×
- Matter of DunnSupreme Court· 1909-02-23· cited 61×
- Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Co. v. TurckSupreme Court· 1893-11-06· cited 57×
- Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad v. BellSupreme Court· 1900-02-26· cited 45×
- St. Louis, Kansas City & Colorado Railroad v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court· 1910-04-11· cited 24×
- Gregory v. Van EeSupreme Court· 1896-01-27· cited 17×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.