Court Opinion

ID: 8780556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 13:16:50.499681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:48.749943
License: Public Domain

HANFORD, District Judge
(concurring). I concur in the foregoing opinion and all of it with this reservation, that as the decision of this court in the case of Seattle Electric Co. v. Seattle R. & S. Ry. Co., 185 Fed. 365, 107 C. C. A. 421, is cited, I am unwilling to acquiesce in that part of said decision found in the quotation from 5 Ency. U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 545, asserting that a party complaining of an invasion of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and also in violation of the Constitution or laws of the state, “must exhaust his remedy in the state courts by prosecuting his case to the state court of last resort” before he will be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court.
The federal courts ordained and established pursuant to the Constitution of the United States have an important function in adjudicating controversies involving questions of national law, and the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Courts in actions at law and suits in equity, if not exclusive, is concurrent with, and not secondary to, the jurisdiction of state courts. I consider that a United States court has no right to deny its jurisdiction, in a case where jurisdiction is conferred by Congress, merely because of a presumption that the rights of the complainant will be fully protected by a state court, or on a review of its decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.