Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis
1996 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996), held that federal jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship can be sustained even if there did not exist complete diversity at the time of removal to federal court, so long as complete diversity exists at the time the district court enters judgment.[1]
This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2015) |
Quick Facts Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, Argued November 12, 1996 Decided December 10, 1996 ...
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis | |
---|---|
Argued November 12, 1996 Decided December 10, 1996 | |
Full case name | Caterpillar, Inc. v. James David Lewis |
Citations | 519 U.S. 61 (more) 117 S. Ct. 467; 136 L. Ed. 2d 437 |
Case history | |
Prior | Judgment for Caterpillar entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and then vacated by the Sixth Circuit, 68 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 1995). Certiorari granted, 517 U.S. 1133 (1996). |
Holding | |
If a case is improperly removed to federal court purportedly under diversity of citizenship, and the district court fails to remand the case back to state court, it does not lack jurisdiction to try the case if, at the time judgment is entered, complete diversity exists between the parties. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Ginsburg, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. III; 28 U.S.C. § 1332; 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) |
Close