Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley

Definition

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case from 1908 that addressed the concept of federal question jurisdiction. The case determined that federal courts have the authority to hear cases that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, particularly when a federal issue is central to the dispute, influencing how lower courts interpret their jurisdiction in similar cases.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case involved a lawsuit by Mottley against Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. for breach of contract over a free pass, which had been revoked by the railroad company.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that Mottley's claim did not arise under federal law, as it was based solely on state law concerning contracts.
3. This ruling established that merely mentioning a federal issue does not automatically grant jurisdiction; the central issue must arise from federal law.
4. The decision reinforced the principle that federal courts are limited to hearing only those cases explicitly authorized by Congress.
5. The outcome has had lasting implications for how courts assess and determine their jurisdiction in cases involving potential federal issues.

Review Questions

• How did the Supreme Court's decision in Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley clarify the boundaries of federal question jurisdiction?
  • The Supreme Court's ruling clarified that for a case to fall under federal question jurisdiction, the primary issue must directly arise from federal law rather than simply being related to it. In Mottley, although a federal law was mentioned regarding the free pass, the actual claim was rooted in state contract law. This distinction emphasized that federal courts should not assume jurisdiction based on incidental references to federal law.
• In what ways did Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley influence future interpretations of jurisdiction in U.S. courts?
  • The case set important precedents for how courts assess jurisdiction, specifically underlining that merely stating a federal question is not enough to invoke federal court authority. This has led to more rigorous scrutiny of claims presented in federal court, ensuring that cases genuinely concern substantial issues of federal law before they are heard at that level. Future cases often reference this decision when determining whether to accept or decline jurisdiction based on the nature of the legal issues involved.
• Evaluate how Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley reflects broader principles regarding state versus federal judicial authority.
  • The decision in Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley illustrates a key tension between state and federal judicial authority, emphasizing respect for state law and limiting federal intervention unless necessary. It showcases the U.S. legal system's design to allow states to handle their own legal disputes unless there is a compelling reason for federal involvement. By reinforcing these principles, the case promotes a balance between the two systems, ensuring that both state and federal courts retain their roles without overstepping boundaries.

Related terms

Federal Question Jurisdiction: The power of federal courts to hear cases that involve a significant issue arising under federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

Diversity Jurisdiction: A form of subject matter jurisdiction allowing federal courts to hear cases where the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds a specified threshold.

Removal Jurisdiction: The ability of a defendant to transfer a case filed in state court to federal court, provided that the case could have originally been filed in federal court.