(Possibly) Stupid Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar

Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

(Possibly) Stupid Question

Postby MrKappus » Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:32 pm

When discussing Supp. Jx, the Emanuel book gives the following example for a fed ct having Supp Jx over impleader claims by 3rd party P's against 3rd party D's:

"While Bobb, a police officer with the Ames, TX Police Dept. (APD), is trying to arrest Paul, a private citizen, Bobb chokes Paul. Paul sues Bobb and the APD for assault, in a diversity action. Paul, Bobb and the APD are all citizens of TX. Bobb then makes an impleader (third-party) claim against the Ames PD, saying that under the APD officers' union K, the APD is liable to pay Bobb's legal-defense costs. Even though Bobb and the APD are both citizens of TX, the lack of diversity doesn't matter b/c 3rd party claims by a 3rd party P (Bobb) against a 3rd party D (APD) fall within the court's supp Jx."

My question: Is this a typo? How is a common law suit (assault) b/t citizens of the same State a "diversity action?" Thank you. This question makes me feel like I'm losing my mind.

User avatar

Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: (Possibly) Stupid Question

Postby superserial » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:04 pm

either it's a typo or Paul's domicile isn't in TX.


Posts: 4254
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: (Possibly) Stupid Question

Postby Renzo » Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:21 pm

Yeah, that makes no sense.

Return to “Forum for Law School Students�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: radio1nowhere and 18 guests