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

Louisville And Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley

• 1908 • 211 U.S. 149 • Fuller Court
In the case of Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley in 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court established a principle known as "well-pleaded complaint rule" for federal jurisdiction based on federal question grounds. The plaintiffs, the Mottleys, were injured in a train accident and received lifetime railroad passes from Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., but later these passes were revoked due to an act of Congress prohibiting free transportation for passengers. The Mottleys sued under...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 Fuller Court
Term: 1908
Docket: 37
211 U.S. 149
29 S. Ct. 42
53 L. Ed. 126
1908 U.S. LEXIS 1533
Argued: Oct 13, 1908

Louisville And Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley in 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court established a principle known as "well-pleaded complaint rule" for federal jurisdiction based on federal question grounds. The plaintiffs, the Mottleys, were injured in a train accident and received lifetime railroad passes from Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., but later these passes were revoked due to an act of Congress prohibiting free transportation for passengers. The Mottleys sued under breach of contract arguing that this law did not apply to their situation because it was part of their settlement agreement before the law came into effect. However, they filed suit in Federal court claiming that it involved interpretation of Federal laws (the Act). The Supreme Court ruled against them stating that even though a defense may raise a federal question or involve interpretation/application of federal laws; unless plaintiff's cause itself arises directly under existing Federal Laws or Constitution - there is no ground for invoking Federal Jurisdiction.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of jurisdiction was too narrow. He believed that federal courts should have jurisdiction over cases where a federal question is raised in anticipation of a defense, not just when it appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. In this case, he thought that because the contract at issue involved an act of Congress (the Federal Employers Liability Act), there was indeed a substantial federal question present even though it arose as part of an anticipated defense rather than directly from Mottleys' claim itself. Thus, contrary to majority’s view which dismissed the case due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under diversity or federal-question grounds; Harlan contended that such dismissal deprived parties like Mottleys their right to litigate in Federal Courts despite having valid claims involving significant issues related to acts passed by Congress.

Opinion written by Justice WHMoody
Decided: Nov 16, 1908
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