An upscale restaurant in new york, new york paid a considerable sum for the entire harvest of ice wine from a small grower in vermont. after receiving and testing the wine cases, the restaurant realized the grapes used to make the wine had spoiled, probably upon re-thawing, when ice crystals can disrupt the fruit. they requested to return the wine, but the grower refused to believe that there was a problem. the restaurant files a claim against the winery in federal court, citing diversity as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. the amount in controversy is over $75,000 and both the restaurant and the grower are incorporated in delaware. can the federal court hear this case?

No, The federal court wouldn't be able to hear this case.

Explanation:

After the reading the case, I believe the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are not met.

According to the Law, there are two basic requirements for diversity jurisdiction:

- 1st Requirement is that the monetary value of the dispute exceeds $75,000 (they passed this requirement)

- 2nd Requirement is that both the accuser and the accused cannot shares a state of citizenship. (They do not passed this Requirement )

Pay attention to this sentence:

". . .both the restaurant and the grower are incorporated in Delaware"

The law considered corporation to be a citizen. Its citizenship is determined by the place where the corporation was incorporated. In this case, both of them are considered to be citizens of Delaware.

answer; /// the correct answer is (belongingness needs; good luck

one way archaeology us understand the past is through the material objects it finds, allowing us to know what was being used, and when. for example a dig recently found a flute, believed to be the oldest musical instrument found to date.

i hope this