[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000109","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/3\/essays\/110\/admiralty\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EAdmiralty\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Article III, Section 2, Clause 1\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe judicial Power shall extend to ...all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction....\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIn England, a separate system of courts that dated to the reign of Edward III dealt with maritime and admiralty issues. \u201cMaritime\u201d originally applied to the high seas, while \u201cadmiralty\u201d applied to areas such as harbors and inlets, though the two terms eventually became synonymous. The substance of traditional admiralty law lay in the civil law, in opposition to and competition with the common law. It covered activities in the country\u2019s territorial sea, and beyond, as permitted by international law. According to Sir William Blackstone in Commentaries on the Laws of England, these courts had jurisdiction \u201cto determine all maritime injuries, arising upon the seas, or in parts out of the reach of the common law.\u201d In the English tradition, then, admiralty jurisdiction did not reach land or inland waters, which were subject to the common law. Thus, when England enforced the Stamp Act (1765) through the admiralty courts, the colonists rebelled against losing their \u201cinestimable\u201d common law right of trial by jury (admiralty and maritime cases typically involve bench trials).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EDuring the Revolution, maritime states exercised their own admiralty jurisdiction. But state prize courts often violated international law by condemning prizes belonging to sister states or nations that were neutral or even allies of the United States. The Articles of Confederation divided admiralty jurisdiction between the states and the United States, but the Constitution gave the national government exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In Philadelphia, the only debate among the Framers of the Constitution was whether to lodge admiralty questions in a separate court or, as they finally decided, in the federal judiciary. There was unanimity, even among the Anti-Federalists, that this power should be national.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAdmiralty law covers (1) damages to ships and cargo on the high seas as well as torts, injuries, and crimes and (2) contracts and activities bearing on shipping, transport, and cargoes on the sea. It was obvious to the founding generation that the federal courts would be applying a preexisting body of maritime law that was observed by most maritime nations. Both John Adams and Alexander Hamilton practiced admiralty law. According to Chief Justice John Marshall, maritime cases before federal courts do not \u201carise under the Constitution or laws of the United States\u201d but \u201care as old as navigation itself.\u201d \u003Cem\u003EAmerican Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, Canter\u003C\/em\u003E (1828).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThough there is no grant of power in the Constitution to Congress to regulate maritime law as such, Congress has in fact modified its content. Some Supreme Court decisions assume that the Commerce Clause provides Congress that power. Justice Joseph Bradley, however, held that the Commerce Power was neither a source nor a limitation of Congress\u2019s power to regulate maritime affairs. Rather, because maritime law is national law, \u201cthe power to make such amendments [to maritime law] is coextensive with that law. It is not confined to the boundaries or class of subjects which limit and characterize the power to regulate commerce; but, in maritime matters, it extends to all matters and places to which the maritime law extends.\u201d \u003Cem\u003EIn re Garnett \u003C\/em\u003E(1891).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ECongress, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, gave the district courts exclusive jurisdiction over\u0026nbsp;admiralty and maritime cases, now codified in 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1333. The Admiralty Clause also accords exclusive federal jurisdiction to captures and prize cases, codified in 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1333(2). See \u003Cem\u003EGlass v. The Sloop Betsey\u003C\/em\u003E (1794); \u003Cem\u003EThe Paquete Habana\u003C\/em\u003E (1900). Until 1875, maritime states continued to pass laws regulating activities in their adjacent waters, and federal courts often applied such state law. But in \u003Cem\u003EThe Lottawanna \u003C\/em\u003E(1874), the Supreme Court declared that the substance of admiralty law was exclusively federal. In fact, the Court has insisted that Congress\u2019s broad power to alter traditional admiralty and maritime rules does not include the capacity to delegate such power to the states (in contrast to Congress\u2019s power under the Commerce Clause). \u003Cem\u003EKnicker-bocker Ice Co. v. Stewart\u003C\/em\u003E (1920).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn 1845, breaking from English precedent that had limited admiralty jurisdiction to the seas and the ebb and flow of the tides, Congress extended admiralty jurisdiction to include inland navigable lakes and rivers. In an approving response, the Supreme Court held that English statutes restricting admiralty jurisdiction from inland waters were not part of American law at the time of the Constitution. \u003Cem\u003EWaring v. Clarke\u003C\/em\u003E (1847); \u003Cem\u003EGenessee Chief v. Fitzhugh\u003C\/em\u003E (1852).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAdmiralty jurisdiction in England also did not cover acts committed on land. But in 1815, Justice Joseph Story declared in DeLovio v. Boit that admiralty jurisdiction includes \u201call contracts, (wheresoever they may be made or executed, or whatsoever may be the form of the stipulations,) which relate to the navigation, business or commerce of the sea.\u201d \u003Cem\u003ESee also United States v. Wiltberger\u003C\/em\u003E (1820); \u003Cem\u003EWaring v. Clarke\u003C\/em\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn \u003Cem\u003EDeLovio\u003C\/em\u003E, the Court had broken new ground by extending admiralty jurisdiction to maritime insurance contracts. But this only created a new problem: when was a contract truly maritime? Whether a contract is \u201cpurely maritime\u201d has been a central question in determining the extent of admiralty jurisdiction. For example, in \u003Cem\u003EPeople\u2019s Ferry Co. v. Beers\u003C\/em\u003E (1858), the Court held that a construction contract to build a ship, as opposed to a repair contract, was not under maritime jurisdiction.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EUntil recently, the Court has held that contracts that had to be performed on both land and sea were cognizable in admiralty only if the application of the contract to land was \u201cmerely incidental.\u201d But in 2004, the Supreme Court found that where the primary purpose of the contract is to ship something over water, even if the goods are also shipped over land, the contract is a maritime contract and the federal courts have admiralty jurisdiction. \u003Cem\u003ENorfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd.\u003C\/em\u003E (2004).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EMuch of admiralty jurisdiction deals with torts, injuries, and prize cases, including shipwrecks and the like. In 1948, Congress expanded admiralty jurisdiction to \u201cinclude all cases of damage or injury, to person or property, caused by a vessel on navigable water, notwithstanding that such damage or injury be done or consummated on land.\u201d At first, the Court, in \u003Cem\u003EGutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp.\u003C\/em\u003E (1963), held that this act covered injuries that occur to a person while on a dock loading or unloading a vessel; but in \u003Cem\u003EVictory Carriers, Inc. v. Law \u003C\/em\u003E(1971), the Court limited \u003Cem\u003EGutierrez \u003C\/em\u003Eonly to situations where the injury is \u201ccaused by an appurtenance of a ship.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EEven though the federal courts have expanded the reach of admiralty jurisdiction, nonetheless, Congress has often sought to preserve the states\u2019 jurisdiction wherever possible. States retain jurisdiction over maritime matters in two ways: geographically and substantively. Thus, although federal maritime law now extends to the interior navigable waters of a state, the state courts still have territorial jurisdiction over actions that occur there. When a case involving maritime law is heard in state court, the state judge must apply federal maritime law over state law.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ESubstantively, Congress has tried to make room for the application of the states\u2019 common law. This has created line-drawing difficulties for the courts. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created an exception known as the savings clause, which defers to the states\u2019 common law jurisdiction. The savings clause reads, \u201csaving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it.\u201d It is currently codified in 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1333(1). In \u003Cem\u003EWaring v. Clarke\u003C\/em\u003E, the Court stated that the purpose behind the savings clause was to preserve a right\u0026nbsp;to trial by jury (a common law right) whenever possible.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn \u003Cem\u003EThe Moses Taylor\u003C\/em\u003E (1866), the Court made the distinction that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over \u003Cem\u003Ein rem\u003C\/em\u003E suits and concurrent jurisdiction with the states over\u003Cem\u003E in personam\u003C\/em\u003E suits, but only insofar as \u003Cem\u003Ein personam\u003C\/em\u003E jurisdiction is part of the state\u2019s traditional common law jurisdiction. The great majority of cases, however, are in personam, and thus in fact state courts and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most maritime actions. A later Supreme Court case allowed a state to obtain jurisdiction even over an \u003Cem\u003Ein rem\u003C\/em\u003E proceeding if the state is seeking the common law remedy of forfeiture. \u003Cem\u003EC. J. Hendry Co. v. Moore\u003C\/em\u003E (1943).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EA state\u2019s concurrent jurisdiction over \u003Cem\u003Ein personam\u003C\/em\u003E suits is not without limits, however. The scope of those limits has been a highly disputed subject in the Supreme Court\u2019s jurisprudence. For many decades, the Supreme Court held, for example, that state worker\u2019s compensation laws as applied to maritime injuries invaded the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. \u003Cem\u003ESouthern Pacific Co. v. Jensen\u003C\/em\u003E (1917). In response, Congress tried to allow some range of state jurisdiction in the Longshore and Harbor Workers\u2019 Compensation Act in 1927, which reserved application of the federal act only after a remedy under state law had been held to be inapplicable. The post-1938 Court upheld the act. \u003Cem\u003EParker v. Motor Boat Sales, Inc.\u003C\/em\u003E (1941). But Congress\u2019s attempt to protect the concurrent jurisdiction of the states was dealt a blow by the Court in \u003Cem\u003ECalbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co.\u003C\/em\u003E (1962). Justice William J. Brennan Jr., writing for the majority, essentially deleted recourse to state jurisdiction from the statute. As a result, the federal statute now applies regardless of whether an appropriate state remedy is available. Justices Potter Stewart and John M. Harlan dissented on the ground that the majority was rewriting the clear language and undoing the legislative history of the statute. Since that time, both Congress and the Court have continued to try to define the appropriate limits to state jurisdiction in statutes and cases. See \u003Cem\u003EUnited States v. Locke\u003C\/em\u003E (2000); \u003Cem\u003ELewis v. Lewis \u0026amp; Clark Marine, Inc.\u003C\/em\u003E (2001).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EPrior to 1875, the Supreme Court exercised appellate review over both the facts and the law in admiralty and maritime suits. In fact, Justice Joseph Story has argued that the real goal of the controversial Appellate Jurisdiction Clause (Article III, Section 2, Clause 2) \u201cwas to retain the power of reviewing the fact, as well as the law, in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.\u201d But in an effort to relieve the Supreme Court of a rather cumbersome caseload, Congress has limited appellate review over admiralty and maritime disputes to issues of law.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/David_Forte.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/facultyprofile.csuohio.edu\/csufacultyprofile\/detail.cfm?FacultyID=D_FORTE\u0022\u003EDavid F. Forte\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000109-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000109-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000109-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000109-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EDavid J. Bederman, \u003Ci\u003EAdmiralty and the Eleventh Amendment\u003C\/i\u003E, 72 Notre Dame L. Rev. 935 (1997)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHenry J. Bourguignon, \u003Ci\u003EThe First Federal Court: The Federal Appellate Prize Court of the\u003C\/i\u003EAmerican Revolution, 1775-1787 (1977)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWilliam R. Casto, \u003Ci\u003EThe Origins of Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction in an Age of Privateers, Smugglers, and Pirates\u003C\/i\u003E, 37 Am. J. Legal Hist. 117 (1993)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJonathan M. Gutoff, \u003Ci\u003EOriginal Understandings and the Private Law Origins of the Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction: A Reply to Professor Casto\u003C\/i\u003E, 30 J. Mar. L. \u0026amp; Com. 361 (1999)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMatthew J. Harrington, \u003Ci\u003EThe Legacy of the Colonial Vice-Admiralty Courts\u003C\/i\u003E, 26 J. Mar. L. \u0026amp; Com. 581 (1995) and 27 J. Mar. L. \u0026amp; Com. 323 (1996)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGerald J. Mangone, United States Admiralty Law (1997)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law (2004)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003EGERALD J. MANGONE, UNITED STATES ADMIRALTY LAW (1997)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003ETHOMAS J. SCHOENBAUM, ADMIRALTY AND MARI-TIME LAW (2004)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003EGraydon S. Staring, \u003Ci\u003EThe Lingering Inf luence of\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003ERichard II and Lord Coke in the American Admiralty\u003C\/i\u003E, 41 J. Mar. L. \u0026amp; Com. 239 (2010)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000109-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EChisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGlass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 6 (1794)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUnited States v. McGill, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 426 (C.C.D. Pa. 1806)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EDe Lovio v. Boit, 7 F. Cas. 418 (C.C.D. Mass. 1815) (No. 3776)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUnited States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76 (1820)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003EAmerican Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, Canter, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWaring v. Clarke, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 441 (1847)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003ENew Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants\u2019 Bank of Boston, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 344 (1848)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003EGenesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 443 (1852)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003EPeople\u2019s Ferry Co. v. Beers, 61 U.S. (20 How.) 393 (1858)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411 (1866)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 557 (1870)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Lottawanna, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 558 (1874)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003EEx parte \u003C\/i\u003EEaston, 95 U.S. 68 (1877)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Abbotsford, 98 U.S. 440 (1878)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003EIn re \u003C\/i\u003EGarnett, 141 U.S. 1 (1891)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMartin v. West, 222 U.S. 191 (1911)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESouthern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENorth Pacific Steamship Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. Shipbuilding Co., 249 U.S. 119 (1919)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EKnickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149 (1920)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWestern Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U.S. 233 (1921) Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U.S. 469\u003Cbr\u003E\n(1922)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPanama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375 (1924) Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109 (1924)\u003Cbr\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-indent:-12.0pt\u0022\u003EWashington v. W. C. Dawson \u0026amp; Co., 264 U.S. 219 (1924)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ELangnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531 (1931)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMarine Transit Corp. v. Dreyfus, 284 U.S. 263 (1932)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-right:3px\u0022\u003EUnited States v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137 (1933)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EParker v. Motor Boat Sales, Inc., 314 U.S. 244 (1941)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EDavis v. Dep\u2019t of Labor \u0026amp; Industries, 317 U.S. 249 (1942)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EC. J. Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 U.S. 133 (1943)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EO\u2019Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge \u0026amp; Dock Co., 318 U.S. 36 (1943)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-indent:-12.0pt\u0022\u003EMadruga v. Superior Court of California, 346 U.S. 556 (1954)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-indent:-12.0pt\u0022\u003ERomero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EKossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U.S. 731 (1961)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ECalbeck v. Travelers Ins. Co., 370 U.S. 114 (1962)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 373 U.S. 206 (1963)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003ENacirema Operating Co. v. Johnson, 396 U.S. 212 (1969)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EVictory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, 404 U.S. 202 (1971)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EExecutive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESun Ship v. Pennsylvania, 447 U.S. 715 (1980)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EForemost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668 (1982)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EExxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, 500 U.S. 603 (1991)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAmerican Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 (1994)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022text-align:justify\u0022\u003EJerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge \u0026amp; Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUnited States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003ELewis v. Lewis \u0026amp; Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003ENorfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543 U.S. 14 (2004)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000109-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000116\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EAppellate Jurisdiction Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000163\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ESuits Against a State\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]