Yes. A state court can hear the case because state courts are allowed to handle cases about federal laws. The court explained that federal laws are also state laws—they apply everywhere in the country. Think of the state and federal governments as partners, not rivals. Unless a federal law says, 'Only federal courts can decide this,' then state courts have the power to step in. Because the bankruptcy law didn't forbid it, the state court had the right to hear the lawsuit.

Yes, the person handling a bankrupt person's legal claims can go to State courts. This is because the types of cases they would bring are the kind that State courts usually deal with. Just because their right to bring these cases comes from a Federal law doesn't mean they can only go to Federal courts. The United States isn't considered a separate country when it comes to State courts; they both are part of the same legal system. So, unless a Federal law says only Federal courts can deal with a certain type of case, State courts can also handle cases that involve Federal law.

Yes. A state court has jurisdiction because unless Congress makes federal jurisdiction exclusive, state courts may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over rights created by federal law. The laws of the United States are the laws of the several states, and state courts are competent to enforce legal or equitable rights acquired under them. The court reasoned that the U.S. and state governments form a single system of jurisprudence, with the U.S. being a concurrent, not foreign, sovereignty. Therefore, rights acquired under federal law may be prosecuted in any state court competent to decide rights of a similar character, unless Congress explicitly or implicitly restricts jurisdiction to federal courts. Citing historical examples from patent law, banking statutes, and the Judiciary Act of 1789, the court concluded that concurrent jurisdiction is the default rule, not the exception.

Yes, an assignee in bankruptcy has the authority to bring a suit in State courts. This is because the actions which lie in such cases are common-law actions or suits in equity, of which the State courts have cognizance. The assignee simply derives his title through a law of the United States, and that title should be respected by the State courts. The United States is not a foreign sovereignty with respect to the States, but a concurrent, and within its jurisdiction, paramount sovereignty. Therefore, the courts of the two jurisdictions are not foreign to each other but are courts of the same country with jurisdiction partly different and partly concurrent. Congress may give exclusive jurisdiction to Federal courts in cases arising under a law of the United States, but if exclusive jurisdiction is neither expressed nor implied, the State courts have concurrent jurisdiction.

Claflin v. Houseman

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot