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

Forsyth v. Doolittle

• 1886 • 120 U.S. 73 • Waite Court
Forsyth v. Doolittle was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer. The case arose when the plaintiff, Forsyth, sought an injunction against the defendant, Doolittle, who was a federal officer. Forsyth alleged that Doolittle had violated the terms of a contract between the two parties. The state court granted the injunction, and Doolittle appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme...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 Waite Court
Term: 1886
Docket: 107
120 U.S. 73
7 S. Ct. 408
30 L. Ed. 586
1877 U.S. LEXIS 1721
Argued: Dec 21, 1886

Forsyth v. Doolittle

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Forsyth v. Doolittle was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer. The case arose when the plaintiff, Forsyth, sought an injunction against the defendant, Doolittle, who was a federal officer. Forsyth alleged that Doolittle had violated the terms of a contract between the two parties. The state court granted the injunction, and Doolittle appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive authority over its officers, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also noted that the state court's injunction would have interfered with the federal government's ability to carry out its duties. The Court's decision in Forsyth v. Doolittle established that state courts do not have the authority to issue injunctions against federal officers. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Forsyth v. Doolittle, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked diversity among the parties involved in the dispute and thus could not exercise its authority under federal law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had given state courts concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts in such cases and therefore they should be allowed to hear them regardless of any lack of diversity among those involved. He further argued that allowing only federal courts to hear these types of disputes would create unnecessary delays for litigants who may need speedy resolution due to their financial circumstances or other reasons related to their particular situation.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: Jan 17, 1887
PDF viewer is not 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