Morris v. Gilmer
United States Supreme Court
129 U.S. 315, 9 S. Ct. 289, 32 L. Ed. 690 (1889)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
In 1884 James N. Gilmer (plaintiff), a citizen of Alabama, sued Josiah Morris and F. M. Billing (defendants), also citizens of Alabama, in Alabama state court over a dispute about stock transfers. The state court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Because the case was dismissed with prejudice, Gilmer could not refile the lawsuit in state court. In 1886 Gilmer, claiming to be a citizen of Tennessee, filed a lawsuit against Morris and Billing in federal district court alleging the same state-law violations he had alleged in state court. Gilmer asserted that diversity jurisdiction existed over the lawsuit because diversity of citizenship existed between him and Morris and Billing. Though Gilmer had moved to Tennessee to file the lawsuit, Morris and Billing presented evidence that Gilmer had moved to Tennessee solely to establish citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes and that Gilmer intended to move back to Alabama permanently. Morris and Billing moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that diversity of citizenship did not exist in the case because Gilmer lacked the sufficient intent to be considered a Tennessee citizen. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss and held in favor of Gilmer. Morris and Billing appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harlan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.