Difference between revisions of "Taylor v. Anderson"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Dadsnagem2 (talk | contribs) m |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→References: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In '''''Taylor v. Anderson''''', 234 U.S. 74, 75-76 (1914), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a federal claim may properly establish jurisdiction only when "unaided by anything alleged or in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose." | + | In '''''Taylor v. Anderson''''', 234 U.S. 74, 75-76 (1914), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a federal claim may properly establish jurisdiction only when "unaided by anything alleged or in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose." <ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=234&invol=74</ref> |
The case concerned a dispute arising from repossession of property. The decision was unanimous. | The case concerned a dispute arising from repossession of property. The decision was unanimous. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Jurisdiction]] |
Latest revision as of 20:06, July 13, 2016
In Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 75-76 (1914), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal claim may properly establish jurisdiction only when "unaided by anything alleged or in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose." [1]
The case concerned a dispute arising from repossession of property. The decision was unanimous.