Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
| Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 18, 1978 Decided June 21, 1978 |
|
| Full case name | Owen Equipment & Erection Company v. Kroger, Administratrix |
| Citations | 437 U.S. 365 (more)
98 S. Ct. 2396; 57 L. Ed. 2d 274; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 114; 25 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 554
|
| Prior history | 558 F.2d 417 (8th Cir. 1977), upholding verict for plaintiff. |
| Subsequent history | Codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) |
| Holding | |
| The court did not have ancillary jurisdiction to hear respondent's new claim that would defeat complete diversity because the new claim was not sufficiently related to the original claim and the plaintiff chose to bring the action in federal court. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by Burger, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens |
| Dissent | White, joined by Brennan |
| Laws applied | |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 | |
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978), is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the civil procedure subject of ancillary jurisdiction.
Respondent Kroger, a citizen of Iowa, filed suit against the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), a Nebraska utility company. Her suit was to recover damages for the wrongful death of her husband, who was electrocuted while walking next to a crane whose boom came too close to a power line. OPPD, which owned the power line, filed a third-party complaint against Owen Equipment & Erection Co., which owned and operated the crane. Kroger then amended her complaint to name Owen as an additional defendant. While Owen initially stated that it was a Nebraska corporation, it was later found that Owen's principal place of business was in fact in Iowa, thus destroying the diversity of citizenship required for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
When confronted with a motion to dismiss for lack of complete diversity, the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska reserved ruling until the end of the trial. Following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the federal district court in an unreported decision denied the motion to dismiss on diversity grounds. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
...
Wikipedia