Connection lost
Server error
OWEN EQUIPMENT & ERECTION CO. v. KROGER Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A plaintiff in a diversity suit asserted a claim against a non-diverse third-party defendant who had been impleaded by the original defendant. The Supreme Court held the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim because it destroyed the complete diversity required by statute.
Legal Significance: This case established that ancillary jurisdiction does not extend to a plaintiff’s claim against a non-diverse third-party defendant in a diversity case. It affirmed that the statutory requirement of complete diversity cannot be circumvented through procedural devices like impleader (FRCP 14).
OWEN EQUIPMENT & ERECTION CO. v. KROGER Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondent Kroger, an Iowa citizen, filed a wrongful-death action in federal court against Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), a Nebraska corporation, based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. OPPD filed a third-party complaint pursuant to FRCP 14(a) against Petitioner Owen Equipment & Erection Co. (Owen), alleging Owen’s negligence was the proximate cause of the death. Believing Owen to be a Nebraska citizen, Kroger amended her complaint to assert a direct state-law tort claim against Owen. Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment for OPPD, dismissing it from the case. During the trial between Kroger and Owen, it was discovered that Owen’s principal place of business was in Iowa, making both Kroger and Owen citizens of the same state. Owen moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, and the jury returned a verdict for Kroger. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over Kroger’s claim against Owen.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In an action based on diversity of citizenship, may a plaintiff assert a claim against a third-party defendant when there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over that claim?
No. The Supreme Court held that a federal court lacks jurisdiction over Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
In an action based on diversity of citizenship, may a plaintiff assert a claim against a third-party defendant when there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over that claim?
Conclusion
This decision sharply defined the limits of ancillary jurisdiction in diversity cases, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore
Legal Rule
A federal court's jurisdiction requires both a constitutional basis under Article III Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit i
Legal Analysis
The Court established a two-part test for jurisdiction over nonfederal claims: 1) Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A plaintiff in a diversity case cannot assert a claim against
