Summary

Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp…

It would, indeed, be anomalous were this Court to be held out as a potential principal forum for settling such controversies. The simultaneous development of 'long-arm jurisdiction' means, in most instances, that no necessity impels us to perform such a role. And the evolution of this Court's responsibilities in the American legal system has brought matters to a point where much would be sacrificed, and little gained, by our exercising original jurisdiction over issues bottomed on local law.
Source: Wikisource

Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp…

While we consider that Ohio's complaint does state a cause of action that falls within the compass of our original jurisdiction, we have concluded that this Court should nevertheless decline to exercise that jurisdiction.
* That we have jurisdiction seems clear enough. [1] Beyond doubt, the complaint on its face reveals the existence of a genuine 'case or controversy' between one State and citizens of another, as well as a foreign subject. Diversity of citizenship is absolute. Nor is the nature of the cause of action asserted a bar to the exercise of our jurisdiction.
Source: Wikisource

Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp…

We have no claim to such expertise or reason to believe that, were we to adjudicate this case, and others like it, we would not have to reduce drastically our attention to those controversies for which this Court is a proper and necessary forum. Such a serious intrusion on society's interest in our most deliberate and considerate performance of our paramount role as the supreme federal appellate court could, in our view, be justified only by the strictest necessity, an element which is evidently totally lacking in this instance.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature