| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

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.
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