Case Citator › Strawbridge v. Curtiss

Strawbridge v. Curtiss

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
7 U.S. 267
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
70 of 72
Citing cases (total)
1,977
Treatment dates
1846
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Strawbridge v. Curtiss is superseded by statute in a narrow setting: 70 of the 72 flagged citations were read, the text of the other 2 could not be retrieved, and the 1 confirmed treatment is listed below. A federal circuit court held that the Act of 1839 relieved against Strawbridge's construction of the 1789 Judiciary Act where defendants were absent or had not appeared, permitting the case to proceed against parties properly before the court.
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed opinions applied Strawbridge, addressed distinct grants of jurisdiction, or used nearby adverse language about another authority.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
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, except the ones whose text could not be retrieved.

1,977 later cases cite Strawbridge v. Curtiss; 72 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 70 of them have been read, and the text of 2 citing opinions could not be retrieved, so those remain unread. 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 Strawbridge v. Curtiss?

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

Superseded by statute

  • The federal circuit court held that the Act of 1839 relieved against Strawbridge's construction of the 1789 Judiciary Act where some defendants were absent or had not appeared, allowing the suit to proceed against those properly before the court.

    Heriot v. Davis · C.C.D. Mass. · filed

    Now, though this law has been once supposed not to change the judiciary act of 1789 [1 Stat 73] as to where parties shall reside, and the former cases were upheld in Commercial & Railroad Bank of Vicksburg v. Slocomb, 14 Pet [39 U. S.] 60; yet it manifestly meant, under certain facts, to relieve against the construction put on that act in [Strawbridge v. Curtiss] 3 Cranch 267; and it was suited to that very object
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Strawbridge v. Curtiss 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