Comment on Case: Coury v. Prot, 85 F. 3d 244, 1996 (Diversity of Citizenship)

11 Pages Posted: 19 Apr 2012

See all articles by Dan Goodman

Dan Goodman

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Date Written: April 18, 2012

Abstract

In the case of Coury v. Prot, Circuit Judge Dennis concludes that the word 'resides' as used in the Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment means 'domiciled' in a State. This is shown to be wrong. In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court states that 'resides' means a 'bona fide residence' in a State.

Also, Judge Dennis conveys that there is only one state citizen for purposes of diversity of citizenship. This is also shown to be incorrect. There are two distinct state citizens for purposes of diversity of citizenship.

Comments are made on averments on citizenship for purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction for a citizen of the United States, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Keywords: diversity of citizenship, resides, domicil, domicile, bona fide residence, actual residence, citizen of a State, two distinct state citizens, citizen of the United States, citizen of the several States, privileges and immunities, aver, citizenship and domicile united

JEL Classification: H10, H11, K19, M49

Suggested Citation

Goodman, Dan, Comment on Case: Coury v. Prot, 85 F. 3d 244, 1996 (Diversity of Citizenship) (April 18, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2042475 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2042475

Dan Goodman (Contact Author)

affiliation not provided to SSRN ( email )

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
39
Abstract Views
562
PlumX Metrics