Talk:Diversity jurisdiction

Untitled
Class actions, complete diversity. Amcfreely 20:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing
This is new rule handed down by SCOTUS this year

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Hertz_Corporation_v._Friend

This article contains no sources for its material. The material appears to be correct, but that excuse the need for reliable sourcing. SMP0328. (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe SMP0328 meant to say that correctness doesn't excuse the need for reliable sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.206.126 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy in amount in controversy section
the page states that diversity jursidiction requires $75,000. this is correct AFAIK. However, when talking about the "legal certainty" test the page starts talking about $250,000. I'm pretty sure that's a mistake and the writer meant $75,000 all along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been heavily vandalized recently. Thanks for pointing that out.--Coolcaesar (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Who thought that diversity isn't subject-matter?
For the purposes of the heading, anyway. C'mon. Please. Lockesdonkey (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Helpful clarification
I think it would help if the article made it explicit that, if federal question jurisdiction is satisfied, diversity of jurisdiction is not an issue. For example, you can sue your employer (assume the company is incorporated in your state) in federal court for violations of federal employment law, the ADA, etc. In other words, diversity jurisdiction is only relevant when you're suing under state law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC18:5600:B0EC:7982:86B1:3E96 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a practice guide. The more appropriate location for that information would be the article on subject-matter jurisdiction. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wording related to overseas residence
"A U.S. citizen who is domiciled outside the U.S. is not considered to be a citizen of any U.S. state, and cannot be considered an alien. The presence of such a person as a party completely destroys diversity jurisdiction, except for a class action or mass action in which minimal diversity exists with respect to other parties in the case."

"... completely destroys" would be better worded in common parlance.The current version is uninterpretable by a lay reader.

S C Cheese (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)