## Facts

- Baker, a farmer formerly residing in Saline County, Illinois, alleged he was attacked in labor-related violence connected to conflict between the United Mine Workers and the Progressive Miners of America, resulting in the loss of his arm.
- Baker sued Keck and other Illinois defendants in federal court in Illinois, asserting state-law tort and conspiracy claims.
- To invoke diversity jurisdiction, Baker alleged he was a citizen of Oklahoma when the suit was filed.
- After his injury, Baker moved with his family from Illinois to Oklahoma, transporting nearly all household goods (leaving only minor items behind).
- In October 1934, Baker rented a house and 20 acres near Ulan, Oklahoma, and began living there; he later renewed the lease and, for 1936, leased the same 20 acres plus an additional 20 acres.
- Baker’s physical limitations prevented extensive farm labor; he and family attempted to farm, did not produce a crop in 1935, and raised garden produce for household use.
- Baker registered to vote in Oklahoma at his first opportunity.
- Defendants presented testimony that Baker said he intended to return to Illinois after his case was settled and that he did not know how long he would remain in Oklahoma.
- Defendants also asserted Baker’s move was financed by the United Mine Workers and undertaken to create diversity jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether Baker was domiciled in Oklahoma (and thus an Oklahoma citizen) at the time of filing, creating diversity of citizenship with Illinois defendants.
2. Whether a move motivated in part by a desire to create diversity jurisdiction prevents the acquisition of a new domicile when the mover intends to reside in the new state indefinitely.

## Decision

- The court treated defendants’ jurisdictional challenge as a factual dispute over Baker’s domicile and held a hearing on the issue without a jury.
- The court held that citizenship for diversity purposes turns on domicile, established by physical presence plus intent to make the state a permanent or indefinite home.
- The court found Baker had established an Oklahoma domicile at the time suit was filed.
- The court ruled that a jurisdictional motive for relocating does not negate a change of domicile if the required intent to remain is present.
- The motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was denied.

## Legal Principles

- For diversity jurisdiction, “citizenship” means domicile, not mere residence.
- Domicile requires (1) physical presence in the state and (2) an intent to remain there permanently or for an indefinite time.
- Objective conduct bearing on intent (e.g., relocating family and possessions, securing ongoing housing/land arrangements, registering to vote) may outweigh conflicting statements about future plans.
- A desire to obtain diversity jurisdiction does not invalidate a change of domicile if the move is accompanied by a genuine intent to make the new state home for an indefinite period.

## Conclusion

The court sustained diversity jurisdiction because Baker’s relocation to Oklahoma, supported by objective acts consistent with an intent to remain indefinitely, established an Oklahoma domicile even if one reason for the move was to file in federal court.


Baker v. Keck, 13 F. Supp. 486 (E.D. Ill. 1936)