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

In Marshall v. The Delaware Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state court could not exercise jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of another state against a corporation chartered in their own state. The case arose when two Maryland residents sued the Delaware Insurance Company for breach of contract and sought damages from it in a Maryland court. However, because the company was incorporated under Delaware law, it argued that only courts within its home state had jurisdiction to hear such claims against it. In affirming this argument, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that states have exclusive authority to regulate corporations created within their borders and thus can determine who may bring suit against them and where those suits must be heard. He further noted that allowing out-of-state plaintiffs to sue foreign corporations would create conflicts between different states’ laws regarding corporate regulation and undermine each one's sovereignty over its own affairs.
In Marshall v. The Delaware Insurance Company, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the case without hearing it on its merits. He noted that while there was no dispute as to whether or not the insurance company had breached their contract with Mr. Marshall, there were still questions of fact and law regarding damages and other issues related to his claim against them. He further argued that since this was an issue of first impression for the Supreme Court, they should hear all relevant evidence before deciding how much compensation Mr. Marshall deserved from his insurer for their breach of contract. In conclusion, Chief Justice John Marshall believed that by dismissing this case without considering any evidence or arguments presented by either side would be a disservice to both parties involved and could lead to future disputes over similar matters being decided differently than if they had been heard in court properly at trial level