holding that the Privileges and Immunities Clause “requires each state to provide access to its courts ‘to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens’ ”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the Privileges and Immunities Clause “requires each state to provide access to its courts ‘to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens’ ”
- noting that, “[wjhere a state law action has as a substantial element an issue involving foreign relations or foreign policy matters, federal jurisdiction is present” but concluding that a suit brought by Venezuelan citizens injured in a pipeline explosion did not affect American foreign policy
- holding that the All Writs Act does not provide an independent basis for supplemental Federal jurisdiction in situations where “[F]ederal jurisdiction is otherwise wholly lacking”
- holding that such a threat would not supply exceptional circumstances
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BLACK, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I fully agree with the majority that federal question jurisdiction cannot be predicated on either theory addressed by the district court — res judicata or the federal treaty with Venezuela. Although the majority opinion is thorough and well-reasoned, I would remand the case for the district court to determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists based on either the All Writs Act or the federal common law of international relations and whether removal is proper because of fraudulent joinder. See Citro Florida, Inc. v. Citrovale, S.A., 760 F.2d 1231, 1232 (11th Cir.1985). These three theories require an examination of the factual record, a function uniquely within the province of the district court. Lee v. Celotex Corp., 764 F.2d 1489, 1492-93 (11th Cir.1985).