Also known as: legal residences · domicile
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A fixed and permanent home established with the intention of remaining indefinitely.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Latoya Lane lived in State A when the contract dispute arose but moved to State B two weeks before filing suit against Lone Peak Energy. Because her legal residence was in State B on the filing date, the federal court found complete diversity and retained subject-matter jurisdiction even though the cause of action originated elsewhere.
After moving from State A to State B, Marcus Hale filed a contract suit in federal court. Because his legal residence was in State B at the moment of filing, complete diversity existed even though the claim arose earlier and he later relocated again.
Luke Latham established legal residence in State A before filing for divorce from his spouse who remained in State B. The court upheld the decree because the parties' legal residence in State A supplied the requisite domiciliary connection for the state to alter their marital status.
Lucy Liu moved to State A and filed for divorce after living there for only six months. The court dismissed the action because her legal residence had not yet satisfied the state's one-year durational requirement for exercising jurisdiction over the marital status.
Lucas Lee sued in the district of his former legal residence after moving to a new state. The court denied the transfer motion because the plaintiff's legal residence at filing fixed venue and the subsequent change in domicile did not defeat the original forum choice.
A father maintained his legal residence in State A when the state initiated proceedings affecting parental rights. The court applied State A law because the father's legal residence supplied the domiciliary link that gave the state authority over the family relationship.
Legal residence requires both physical presence and an intention to remain indefinitely. A party who moves into a state solely for litigation lacks the requisite intent, so citizenship for diversity purposes remains unchanged.
No. Once diversity is properly established at the time suit is instituted, subsequent changes in domicile do not divest the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
…of a foreign nation, because to some limited extent one's property and affairs then become subject to the laws of the nation of domicile of the corporation. As a matter of international law, that suggestion might be acceptable because a foreign investment is sufficiently unusual to make it appropriate to require the investor…