Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Evans v. Hettich

1822 • 20 U.S. 453 • Marshall Court
In Evans v. Hettich, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens from different states. The plaintiff, Evans, argued that since he and the defendant were both citizens of different states at the time they entered into their agreement, it should be considered as a federal question and thus fall under federal jurisdiction. However, Chief Justice John Marshall held that...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Marshall Court
Term: 1822
20 U.S. 453
5 L. Ed. 496
1822 U.S. LEXIS 267

Evans v. Hettich

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Evans v. Hettich, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens from different states. The plaintiff, Evans, argued that since he and the defendant were both citizens of different states at the time they entered into their agreement, it should be considered as a federal question and thus fall under federal jurisdiction. However, Chief Justice John Marshall held that although such contracts may involve parties from multiple states or countries in some cases, this particular dispute did not meet those criteria because only two individuals were involved and they both resided within one state when entering into their agreement. As such, he concluded that it was up to each individual state's courts to decide on matters related to contracts made by its own citizens within its borders.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Evans v. Hettich, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving an alleged breach of contract between citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Johnson argued that under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has granted federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction over cases in which one party is from another state or country. He further stated that this power should be extended to state courts as well since they are part of the judicial system established by Congress and therefore should share its powers equally with federal courts when dealing with interstate disputes. Furthermore, he noted that if there were no concurrent authority for both types of courts then many suits would go unredressed due to lack of access or resources available in either type court alone. Ultimately Justice Johnson concluded that allowing both types of jurisdictions would provide greater protection for individuals’ rights than having only one type available

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms