Case Citator › Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.

Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
358 U.S. 354
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
80 of 80
Citing cases (total)
80
Treatment dates
1981
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. has one confirmed limit, listed below, after all 80 flagged citations were read. The Fifth Circuit declined to extend Romero's exception to complete diversity to a maritime claim whose only federal basis was admiralty jurisdiction.
More on how this was screened

Later courts continued to apply Romero's separate federal-question and maritime choice of law rules.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

80 later cases cite Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.; 80 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Fifth Circuit declined to extend Romero's exception to the complete-diversity rule where the claim against the nondiverse defendant rested solely on admiralty jurisdiction rather than a separate nonadmiralty federal basis.

    Powell v. Offshore Navigation, Inc. · Fifth Circuit · filed

    With the two possible interpretations of the phrase “independent basis of federal jurisdiction” thus understood, we think it clear that the Romero exception to the rule of Strawbridge v. Curtiss applies only in the narrower circumstances stated by the district court — i. e., where a non-admiralty basis of jurisdiction exists over the non-diverse defendant. The broader interpretation urged by Powell — i. e., that the Romero exception applies whenever any basis of jurisdiction other than diversity can be asserted against the non-diverse defendant— leads to a result much broader than anything possibly contemplated in Romero.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace