Sadat v. Mertes
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
615 F.2d 1176 (1980)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
In 1976 Moheb al Sadat (plaintiff) sued Heinz Mertes and others (defendants) in federal court for negligence relating to a 1973 automobile accident. Sadat was born in Egypt. In 1973 Sadat was domiciled in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Sadat became a naturalized United States citizen in 1973, a process requiring a pledge of sole allegiance to the United States. The Egyptian government sent a letter acknowledging Sadat’s new citizenship and stating that Sadat still retained his Egyptian citizenship. Sadat accepted a job offer in Lebanon in 1973. Sadat sold his family’s home in Pittsburgh and moved to Lebanon. Sadat notified the United States Embassy that he intended Lebanon to be his permanent residence. In 1975 Sadat ended his employment in Lebanon. Sadat wanted to return to the United States; however, after conflict broke out in Lebanon, Sadat fled to Egypt. Sadat paid real estate taxes in Egypt, registered at the United States Embassy as a permanent resident of Egypt, and received an Egyptian driver’s license. Sadat filed the negligence complaint in 1976 while residing in Egypt. In 1978 Sadat began residing in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In response to a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Sadat argued that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction on grounds including his foreign citizenship in Egypt. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. Sadat appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 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.