§ 540

Citation: § 540
Parent Document: Flo-Pro v. 10 Iron Horse Drive, et al, 2011 DNH 155 (2011)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2011-09-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10694944/flo-pro-v-10-iron-horse-drive-et-al/ ↗

Full Text

924 chars

5These decisions appear to overlook the "long-established
rule that states may not limit federal jurisdiction by passing
restrictive statutes." Mullen v. Academy Life Ins. Co., 705 F.2d
971, 975 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing, inter alia, Ry. Co. v. Whitton,
80 U.S. 270, 286 (1881)); see also, e.g., 17A Wright, supra,
§ 4211, at 29 (calling it "black-letter law that the jurisdiction
of the federal courts cannot be taken away by state statutes,"
subject to a "gualification" inapplicable to possessory actions)
(guotation marks omitted). So it seems doubtful that a state
could deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction they would
otherwise have simply by adopting summary procedures for
resolving certain kinds of claims. Because this is not a
possessory action, however, this court need not decide what
effect, if any, a state's adoption of summary procedures for
handling those actions has on federal jurisdiction over them.

Other Sections in This Document (490)

Full Text