1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 106 F.3d
  5. 106 F.3d 494 (1997)
 

DRESSER INDUS. v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON

No. 96-1044.

106 F.3d 494 (1997)

DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC.; Dresser Canada, Inc., Appellants, v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON, and certain London Market Companies; Bishopgate Insurance Company, Ltd.; Bishopgate Insurance P.L.C.; British Law Insurance Company, Ltd.; Cornhill Insurance, P.L.C.; Dai-Tokyo Insurance Company (U.K.) Limited; English & Scottish Maritime & General Insurance Company Ltd.; Excess Insurance Company, Limited; Hansa Marine Insurance Company (U.K.) Ltd.; the Indemnity Marine Assurance Company, Ltd.; Insurance Company of North America (U.K.) Limited; Icarom P.L.C. (formerly known as the Insurance Corporation of Ireland Ltd.); Iron Trades Mutual Insurance Company, Ltd.; London & Hull Maritime Insurance Company, Ltd.; Minster Insurance Company, Ltd.; the National Insurance Company of New Zealand, Limited; New Hampshire Insurance Company; the Nippon Fire & Marine Insurance Company (UK) Limited; Ocean Marine Insurance Company, Ltd.; Pearl Assurance Public Limited Company; Phoenix Assurance Public Limited Company; Polaris Assurance; Provincial Insurance Public Limited Company; Prudential Assurance Company Limited; Skandia U.K. Insurance P.L.C.; Sphere Drake Insurance Public Limited Company (for itself and as successor to Sphere Insurance Company, Limited and the Drake Insurance Company, Limited); Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Limited; Switzerland General Insurance Company (London), Ltd.; Taisho Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Ltd.; the Threadneedle Insurance Company Limited; the Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Limited; Vesta (UK) Insurance Company, Ltd.; the Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company (UK), Ltd.; Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Ltd.; the Yorkshire Insurance Company Limited.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Decided February 6, 1997.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mary M. O'Day, Donald E. Seymour, John K. Baillie, Michael G. Zanic (argued), Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellants.

Edward R. Dunham, Jr., Miller, Dunham & Doering, Philadelphia, PA, Martin R. Baach, James P. Davenport (argued), Nussbaum & Wald, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Before: NYGAARD, LEWIS and McKEE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

The principal question we are asked to decide in this appeal is whether federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit between diverse citizens when, in addition to those citizens, aliens appear as both plaintiffs and defendants. We conclude they do, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3), and will reverse the district court's decision to the contrary.

I...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases