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

Ogle v. Lee

1804 • 6 U.S. 33 • Marshall Court
In the case of Ogle v. Lee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which both parties were citizens of different states. The plaintiff, Ogle, argued that he should be able to bring his suit in Maryland's courts because he was a resident there and it would be more convenient for him than bringing it before the federal court. The defendant countered that since they were both citizens from...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: 1804
6 U.S. 33
2 L. Ed. 198
1804 U.S. LEXIS 250
Argued: Feb 20, 1804

Ogle v. Lee

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Ogle v. Lee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which both parties were citizens of different states. The plaintiff, Ogle, argued that he should be able to bring his suit in Maryland's courts because he was a resident there and it would be more convenient for him than bringing it before the federal court. The defendant countered that since they were both citizens from different states, only the federal court could hear such cases under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution. After considering arguments on both sides, Chief Justice Marshall held that while Congress has exclusive power to determine when suits between two citizens from different states can be heard in federal courts; however this does not preclude them from being heard in state courts as well if Congress has not acted upon it yet or specifically excluded them from doing so. Thus Maryland did have jurisdiction over this particular case and could proceed with hearing it accordingly

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Ogle v. Lee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an officer of the United States Navy and his wife. The majority opinion held that it did not have jurisdiction because the defendant was an officer in service of the United States at the time of suit being brought against him. However, Justice William Johnson dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had granted exclusive jurisdiction to state courts for all cases arising under maritime law; secondly, he argued that even if Congress had not done so explicitly, they could still do so implicitly by granting such authority through their power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among states. He concluded by stating that since there were no laws prohibiting or limiting state court's ability to hear such cases involving officers in service of the United States government then it should be assumed they have full authority unless otherwise stated by Congress itself.

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