Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||
| A violation of a federal statute, as part of a claim, is not sufficient for the federal courts to claim original jurisdiction if the statute does not create a private remedies for violations of the statute. | |||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
| Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor |
|||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||
| Majority by: Stevens Dissent by: Brennam Joined by: White, Marshall, Blackman |
|||||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||||
| 28 U.S.C. 1331. | |||||||||
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving original jurisdiction.
Contents |
[edit] Facts
Thomas, a resident of Canada, and the MacTavishes, residents of Scotland, filed virtually identical complaints in the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio, claiming negligence, fraud, breach of warranty, and misbranding in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The mother in each family had taken the drug Bendection during pregnancy which they claimed cause harm to their children including birth defects.
[edit] Issue
Do the federal courts have original jurisdiction when a claim arises out of a federal statute that has not specifically grated a private right to a cause of action?
[edit] Procedural History
The case was filed in State Court and then removed to District Court where it was found that Count IV (the misbranding count) of the complaint alleged a cause of action arising under federal law and denied the motion to remand. It then granted petitioner's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed claiming that the FDCA did not create or imply a private right to sue for injury resulting in no federal subject matter urisdiction.
[edit] Rules
This case give several different tests to determine when a case is covered under original jurisdiction for the federal courts. These test include:
Holmes Test:
The "vast majority" of cases that come within this grant of jurisdiction are covered by Justice Holmes' statement that a "`suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.'" Id., at 8-9, quoting American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916).
Franchise Tax Board Test:
the court has also granted jurisdiction "where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turned on some construction of federal law" American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916)
Smith Test (Quoting from the dissent):
"The general rule is that where it appears from the bill or statement of the plaintiff that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that such federal claim is not merely colorable, and rests upon a reasonable foundation, the District Court has jurisdiction [478 U.S. 804, 820] under [the statute granting federal question jurisdiction]." 255 U.S., at 199 .
[edit] Holding
The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit and ruled that their was no original jurisdiction.
