The U.S. Supreme Court case Mary Anna Rivet, et al. v. Regions Bank of Louisiana et al., 1997 revolved around the issue of whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a claim that is related to another claim which falls under its original jurisdiction but does not independently meet the requirements for federal jurisdiction itself. The plaintiffs, heirs to an estate in Louisiana, sued Regions Bank and other defendants in state court alleging violations of state law regarding their administration of the estate's assets. After removing the case to Federal District Court based on diversity-of-citizenship grounds, one defendant filed counterclaims against some plaintiffs who were citizens of the same State as he was - thus destroying complete diversity required for federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C §1332(a). However, these counterclaims were compulsory (i.e., they arose out from same transaction or occurrence) and hence could be heard by Federal courts even without independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction according to Rule 13(a) of Federal Rules Civil Procedure (FRCP). The Supreme Court held that such claims do not need an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if they are part-and-parcel with main action falling within original judicial competence.

In the dissenting opinion for Mary Anna Rivet, et al. v. Regions Bank of Louisiana et al., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 28 U.S.C §1441(a) and (b), which governs removal jurisdiction in federal courts. She argued that this case should not have been removed to a federal court because it involved an issue of state law - specifically, whether or not a mortgage was valid under Louisiana law. The majority held that since one defendant was from out-of-state, there was diversity jurisdiction allowing for removal to federal court; however, Ginsburg contended that all defendants needed to be diverse from all plaintiffs for such action. Additionally, she criticized the majority’s reliance on policy arguments about efficiency and fairness rather than adhering strictly to statutory text and historical practice regarding removal jurisdiction.