green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 17×
32.8 score
G Cite
cited 9× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 1988 ·
…a state is not a citizen. and, under the judiciary acts of the united states, it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states....
✓
Topic ↗
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1996 ·
…a state is not a citizen. and ... a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states_
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1901 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1901
1963
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Blue Castle (Cayman) Ltd. v. Jones
a state is not a citizen.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet v. Brown
suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states, and the circuit court of the united states has no jurisdiction of it, unless it arises under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the united states.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State of Missouri v. Happy Fun Events, LLC
a state is not a citizen.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Puerto Rico Department of Public Safety, 9-1-1 Emergency System Bureau v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc.
a state is not a citizen. and, under the judiciary 13 14 acts of the united states, it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen or a 15 corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Brent Hesselink v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus
suit between a 16 state and a citizen . . . of another state is not between citizens of different states, and no jurisdiction of it
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Agullard v. Principal Life Insurance
(3×)
suit between a state and citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of 953 different states ....
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Chisholm v. United of Omaha Life Insurance
(3×)
t is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen ... of another state is not between citizens of different states....
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wilkerson v. MISSOURI DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH
(3×)
it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen ... of another state is not between citizens of different states
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Batton v. Georgia Gulf
(9×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
a state is not a citizen. and under the judiciary acts... a suit between a state and a ... corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states, and ... court of the united states has no jurisdiction of it...
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In re of 17,325 Liters of Liquor
(3×)
a state is not a citizen. and ... a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states_
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brown v. Francis
(3×)
it is well settled that a state is not a citizen within the meaning of the diversity statute.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State of Louisiana v. Sprint Communications Co.
(3×)
a state is not a citizen. and under the judiciary acts ... a suit between a state and a ... corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states, and ... court of the united states has no jurisdiction of it ...
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellant v. California State Board of Equalization Richard Nevins, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the State Board of Equalization Conway H. Collis, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr., in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization William M. Bennett, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization, Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellee. Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellee v. California State Board of Equalization, and Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellant. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization
(3×)
a state is not a citizen. and, under the judiciary acts of the united states, it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states....
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization
(3×)
a state is not a citizen. and, under the judiciary acts of the united states, it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states....
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellant v. California State Board of Equalization Richard Nevins, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the State Board of Equalization Conway H. Collis, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr., in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization William M. Bennett, in His Official Capacity as a Member of the State Board of Equalization, Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellee. Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff/counterclaim-Defendant/appellee v. California State Board of Equalization, and Clive Miller, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellant. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization
(3×)
a state is not a citizen. and, under the judiciary acts of the united states, it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states....
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization
(3×)
a state is not a citizen. and, under the judiciary acts of the united states, it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states_
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hall v. Jackson
Further, the inclusion of the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission as Defendants destroys diversity of citizenship, which must be between citizens of different states. “[I]t is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen ... of another state is not between citizens of different states.” Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. State of Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MSI Building Supplies, Inc. v. The United States Virgin Islands
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894) (“A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.); Louisiana v. Union Oil Co. of California, 458 F.3d 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2006) (opinion that “in an action where a state is a party, there can be no federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship because a state is not a citizen for federal courts with general federal question jurisdiction “over all civil actions arising under…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bluewater Construction, Inc. v. The United States Virgin Islands
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894) (“A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.); Louisiana v. Union Oil Co. of California, 458 F.3d 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2006) (opinion that “in an action where a state is a party, there can be no federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship because a state is not a citizen for federal courts with general federal question jurisdiction “over all civil actions arising under…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Impex Trading International, Inc. v. USVI
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894) (“A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.); Louisiana v. Union Oil Co. of California, 458 F.3d 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2006) (opinion that “in an action where a state is a party, there can be no federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship because a state is not a citizen for federal courts with general federal question jurisdiction “over all civil actions arising under…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
B&B Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States Virgin Islands
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894) (“A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.); Louisiana v. Union Oil Co. of California, 458 F.3d 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2006) (opinion that “in an action where a state is a party, there can be no federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship because a state is not a citizen for federal courts with general federal question jurisdiction “over all civil actions arising under…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Apex Construction Company, Inc v. USVI
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894) (“A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.); Louisiana v. Union Oil Co. of California, 458 F.3d 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2006) (opinion that “in an action where a state is a party, there can be no federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship because a state is not a citizen for federal courts with general federal question jurisdiction “over all civil actions arising under…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Corporation v. USVI
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894) (“A State is not [itself] a citizen, And, under the judiciary acts of the United States, it is well established that a suit between a State and a citizen . . . is not between citizens of different States.); Louisiana v. Union Oil Co. of California, 458 F.3d 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2006) (opinion that “in an action where a state is a party, there can be no federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship because a state is not a citizen for federal courts with general federal question jurisdiction “over all civil actions arising under…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Torres v. Department of Labor
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arami Cheyenne Walker v. Board of Regents, University of California
Cable Co. v. State of Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894). 2 The question presented by this case is whether the Regents constitute an arm of the state.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fennick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Cir. 1987) (quoting Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
USA ex rel Mohajer
And under the [laws] of the United States it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states.” Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894); see also Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U.S. 430, 433 (1886); Moor v. Alameda Cnty., 411 U.S. 693, 717 (1973) (there is “no question that a State is not a ‘citizen’ for purposes of [ ] diversity jurisdiction.”) As a result, the fact that a state qui tam complaint is brought on behalf of, say, the State of Georgia, of which neither Omnicare no…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Grace Ranch v. BP American Production
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Grace Ranch v. BP American Production
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
West Virginia State University Board of Governors v. The Dow Chemical Company
Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717 (1973); Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894); Md.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People of the State of Colorado, The v. Ziankovich
Thus, “it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen or a corporation of another state is not between citizens of different states, and that the circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction of it, unless it arises under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894) (reversing with directions to remand to state court).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Department of Fair Employment v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
University v. A.W. Chesterton
A State cannot be a "citizen" of itself for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.3 Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717 (1973); Postal Tel. ____ _________________ ___________ Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
University v. A.W. Chesterton
Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dahn v. District of Columbia
Cary v. White, 457 U.S. 85, 87-88 (1982); Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James M. Shannon, as He is Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Telco Communications, Inc. And Donald Quatrucci
State Highway Commission v. Utah Construction Co., 278 U.S. 194, 200 , 49 S.Ct. 104, 106 , 73 L.Ed. 262 (1929) (quoting Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482 , 15 S.Ct. 192 , 39 L.Ed. 231, 487 (1894)); see Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals, 401 U.S. at 498 n. 3, 91 S.Ct. at 109 n. 3.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. West Virginia Board of Regents
Id. at 482, 483 , 15 S.Ct. at 192, 193 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. West Virginia Board of Regents
Id. at 482, 483 , 15 S.Ct. at 192, 193 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nevada v. Hall
(2×)
Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 717 (1973); Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482, 487 (1894).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberson v. Dale
In a variant of their “alter-ego” argument, they also point to the Eleventh Amendment’s absolute bar to suits in federal courts “against one of the United States by citizens of another State . . . .” 12 It is well settled that a state is not a “citizen” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). 13 Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717 , 93 S.Ct. 1785, 1799 , 36 L.Ed.2d 596, 614 (1973); Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 , 15 S.Ct. 192, 194 , 39 L.Ed. 231, 232-33 (1894).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moor v. County of Alameda
(2×)
That proposition has been established at least since this Court's decision in Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482, 487 (1894).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Highway Comm. of Wyoming v. Utah Construction Co.
And, under the Judiciary Acts of the United States, it is well settled that a suit between a State and a citizen or a corporation of another State is not between citizens of different States; and that the Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction of it, unless it arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482, 487.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Utah Const. Co. v. State Highway Commission of Wyoming
As before stated, this action, so far as the jurisdiction of this court is concerned, is based upon the necessary amount being in controversy and the diversity of citizenship of the parties, but as stated in Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482 , at page 487, 15 S. Ct. 192, 194 ( 39 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Marcus Rushing v. The McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University; Wood County Hospital; Wood Health Company, LLC; Independence Health Employer Services, LLC; The Toledo Clinic; Signify Health, Inc.; The Huntington National Bank; Huntington Bancshares Incorporated; The U.S. Bank National Association; The Illinois Department of Human Rights; The Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission; The State of Illinois Judicial Order Inquiry Board; The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation; The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services; Husch Blackwell, LLP; Scott Warner; Julie Garabedian; Roya H. Samarghandi; January Family Law, LLC; Joerika Stitt; Henderson Banks; Al Hofeld, Jr., Esq.; Paul Straus; Michael Forti; Michael Davi; David Haracz; Russell D. Knight; Frumm & Frumm; Taege Law Offices; The Willis Law Firm; Kimberly Dodson; Ramon Martin; Dean Mandros; The Ohio Civil Rights Commission
See Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. State of Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894) (“it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen . . . of another state is not between citizens of different states” for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction); Dep't of Fair Emp. & Hous. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 642 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that “neither a state nor a state agency [can] be a party to a diversity action”) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper v. Nicholas J. Dubois; Mrs. Nicholas J Dubois, His Wife; and the United States of America
See Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894); Arkansas v. Kan. & Tex. Coal Co., 183 U.S. 185, 188 (1901); N. Sec.
examined
Cited "see"
MacHie v. Chardonnet
(3×)
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . ■ “The Supreme Court long has held that states [and their arms or alter egos] are not subject to diversity jurisdiction under [§ 1332].” Long v. D.C., 820 F.2d 409, 412-13 (D.C.Cir.1987) (quoting Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482 , 15 S.Ct. 192 , 39 L.Ed. 231 (1894); State Highway Commission v. Utah Construction Co., 278 U.S. 194 , 49 S.Ct. 104 , 73 L.Ed. 262 (1929)).
examined
Cited "see"
Kansas State University v. Prince
(3×)
See Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. State of Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 , 15 S.Ct. 192 , 39 L.Ed. 231 (1894)); Innes v. KSU, 184 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1037 , 120 S.Ct. 1530 , 146 L.Ed.2d 345 (2000).
examined
Cited "see"
Frazier v. Pioneer Americas LLC
(3×)
See Cory v. White, 457 U.S. 85, 87 , 102 S.Ct. 2325 , 72 L.Ed.2d 694 (1982), citing Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Ala., 155 U.S. 482 , 15 S.Ct. 192 , 39 L.Ed. 231 (1894). 25 . 151 Cong.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Postal Telegraph Cable Company
v.
Alabama
v.
Alabama
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 17, 1894.
Mr. T. Moultrie Mordeeai and. Mr. P. H. Gadsden for plaintiff in error., Mr. William L. Martin, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, for defendant in error.
Gray.
and extending beyond its limits into' and across other States and Territories
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (12) · M.D. Louisiana (9) · N.D. New York (6) · D. Arizona (3) · Third Circuit (3) · D. Connecticut (3) · E.D. Missouri (3)
Mr. Justice Gray,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
By section 1 of the act of Congress of March 3, 1875, c. 137, as amended by the acts of March 3, 1887, c. 373, and August 13, 1888, c. 866, it is enacted that the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2000, “ and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall -be made, under their authority; or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners ; or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States ; ” “ or a controversy between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States; or a controversy between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens or subjects.” And by section 2, the defendant’s right to remove a suit — whether arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, or. coming within any other class above enumerated — from a state court into the Circuit Court of- the United States, is restricted to suits “ of which the Circuit Courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction by the preceding section.” 25 Stat. 434.
[*487] The grounds upon which the present suit was removed from, a court of the State of Alabama into the Circuit Court of the United States were that the controversy therein arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that it was wholly between citizens of different States.
But the suit was one brought by the State to recover taxes and penalties imposed by its own revenue laws, the jurisdiction over which belongs to its own tribunals, except so far as Congress, in order to secure the supremacy of the national Constitution and laws, has provided for a removal into the courts of the United States. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265, 290 ; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 672. And the. complaint by which the suit was begun did not mention the Constitution or any law of the United States, or claim any right under either.
A State is not a citizen. And, under the Judiciary Acts of the United States, it is well settled that a suit between a State and a citizen or a corporation of another State is not between citizens of different States; and that the Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction of it, unless it arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430; Germania Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 119 U. S. 473.
It is equally well settled that under the provisions, above referred to, of the existing act of Congress, no suit can be removed by a defendant from a state court into the Circuit Court of the United States, as one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, unless the fact that it so arises appears by the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim; and that a deficiency in his statement, in this respect, cannot be supplied by allegations in the petition for removal, or in subsequent pleadings in the case. Tennessee v. Bank of Commerce, 152 U. S. 454; Chappell v. Waterworth, ante, 102.
The conclusion is inevitable, that the judgment of the Circuit Court .of the United States must be reversed, and the case remanded to that court, with directions to remand it to the state court; and that, the case having been wrongfully[*488] removed into the Circuit Court of the United States by the Postal Telegraph Cable Company, that company must pay the costs in that court, as well as in this court. Tennessee v. Bank of Commerce, above cited; Hanrick v. Hanrick, 153 U. S. 192.
Judgment reversed accordingly.