Mater v. Holley, No. 14165.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | BORAH, STRUM and RIVES, Circuit |
| Citation | 200 F.2d 123 |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 14165. |
| Parties | MATER v. HOLLEY et al. |
200 F.2d 123 (1952)
MATER
v.
HOLLEY et al.
No. 14165.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 29, 1952.
Glover McGhee and Warner S. Currie, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Edward L. Savell, Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.
Before BORAH, STRUM and RIVES, Circuit Judges.
STRUM, Circuit Judge.
Alleging that she suffered personal injuries as a result of the negligence of appellees within the boundaries of Fort McPherson, Georgia, appellant brought suit in a federal district court to recover damages. The district judge dismissed the action for lack of federal jurisdiction. The correctness of that action is the sole question on appeal. There is no diversity of citizenship between the parties. If federal jurisdiction exists, it must rest upon some other ground.
It is conceded that Fort McPherson is within the provisions of Art. I, sec. 8, clause 17, of the United States Constitution which grants to the United States "exclusive legislation" over forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings, when lands therefor are acquired with the consent of the legislature of the state of their situs. Exclusive "legislation" has been construed to mean exclusive "jurisdiction" in the sense of exclusive sovereignty. Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652, 50 S.Ct. 455, 74 L.Ed. 1091, 1095.
The lands comprising Fort McPherson have been duly ceded to the United States by the State of Georgia, the State now retaining only concurrent jurisdiction for the service of state process and the regulation of public utilities thereon. Ga.Acts 1884-1885, No. 176, page 120; Ga.Laws 1952, Act No. 851, page 264, amending sec. 15-302, Ga.Code 1933.
The Supreme Court has held that an action for personal injuries suffered on a reservation under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, being transitory, may be maintained in a state court which has personal jurisdiction of the defendant. Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon, 244 U.S. 68, 37 S.Ct. 599, 61 L.Ed. 997. And
It remains to be determined, however, whether there is also federal jurisdiction of such an action as one which arises under the constitution or laws of the United States within 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, on which appellant here relies. There is a striking diversity of opinion on the subject, to such an extent, in fact, that three eminent district judges within the same district were unable to agree. Two took the view that federal jurisdiction did not exist, while the other took the contrary view both before and after examining the opinions of his colleagues. Compare Coffman v. Cleveland Wrecking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Balderrama v. Pride Indus., Inc., EP–13–CV–169–KC.
...jurisdiction at the date of cession “until [the pre-existing state law is] abrogated or altered by the new sovereign.” Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123, 124 (5th Cir.1952). The act of cession therefore incorporates into the federal law governing these lands all state law that “was in force at ......
-
Bd. of Comm'rs of the Se. La. Flood Prot. Auth.-E. v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., Civil Action Case No. 13–5410.
...Id. at p. 39.145 Id.146 Id. at p. 40.147 Id.148 See Akin v. Ashland Chem. Co., 156 F.3d 1030, 1034 (10th Cir.1998) ; Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123, 124–25 (5th Cir.1952).149 U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 17.150 Akin, 156 F.3d at 1034 ; see also, e.g., Mater, 200 F.2d at 124 (observing that t......
-
Mayor of Balt. v. BP P. L.C., Civil Action No. ELH-18-2357
...Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Willis v. Craig , 555 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1977) ; Mater v. Holley , 200 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1952). In relevant part, that section provides:Congress shall have Power ... to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whats......
-
Abbay v. Aurora Pump Co., 62399-1-I
...a federal enclave is treated as raising a federal question subject to subject matter jurisdiction in federal court. Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123, 124–25 (5th Cir. 1952). "Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over tort claims that arise on 'federal enclaves.'" Durham v. Lockhea......
-
Balderrama v. Pride Indus., Inc., EP–13–CV–169–KC.
...jurisdiction at the date of cession “until [the pre-existing state law is] abrogated or altered by the new sovereign.” Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123, 124 (5th Cir.1952). The act of cession therefore incorporates into the federal law governing these lands all state law that “was in force at ......
-
Bd. of Comm'rs of the Se. La. Flood Prot. Auth.-E. v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., Civil Action Case No. 13–5410.
...Id. at p. 39.145 Id.146 Id. at p. 40.147 Id.148 See Akin v. Ashland Chem. Co., 156 F.3d 1030, 1034 (10th Cir.1998) ; Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123, 124–25 (5th Cir.1952).149 U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 17.150 Akin, 156 F.3d at 1034 ; see also, e.g., Mater, 200 F.2d at 124 (observing that t......
-
Mayor of Balt. v. BP P. L.C., Civil Action No. ELH-18-2357
...Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Willis v. Craig , 555 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1977) ; Mater v. Holley , 200 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1952). In relevant part, that section provides:Congress shall have Power ... to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whats......
-
Abbay v. Aurora Pump Co., 62399-1-I
...a federal enclave is treated as raising a federal question subject to subject matter jurisdiction in federal court. Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123, 124–25 (5th Cir. 1952). "Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over tort claims that arise on 'federal enclaves.'" Durham v. Lockhea......