- 28 -
solely to create diversity of citizenship for access to the
Federal courts. Id. at 31055.
Furthermore, there are important differences in a court’s
focus with respect to questions of appellate venue versus
questions of diversity of citizenship in order to qualify for
Federal jurisdiction. For diversity jurisdiction purposes, a
representative’s citizenship may be determinative of the
threshold question of whether a party can have access to Federal
courts. Prior to the 1988 legislation, by acknowledging the
representative’s citizenship, courts could ensure that a Federal
forum was available to an estate if the representative’s
citizenship was different from that of any other litigant.
The residence of a fiduciary for purposes of an appeal from
this Court is not a threshold question that would otherwise be a
prerequisite to Federal court access. The focus of our inquiry
involves which Court of Appeals is the most appropriate one to
address an estate’s appeal from this Court.7 In making this
choice we must consider that circuit’s nexus to the subject
matter, the court’s familiarity with local law of the decedent’s
domicile, and the general convenience to all parties.
7 We are not in a position to dictate which Court of Appeals
should review our opinions. However, in the process of
establishing a rule concerning the identity of the petitioner in
our Court and interpreting the appellate venue statute, we should
consider the potential procedural effect on the litigation
process.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011