|
| |
| | Amount in controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
 | | Amount in controversy (sometimes called jurisdictional amount) is a term used in United States civil procedure to denote a requirement that persons seeking to bring a lawsuit in a particular court must be suing for a certain minimum amount before that court may hear the case. | | | In United States federal courts, the term currently only applies to cases brought under diversity jurisdiction, meaning that the court is only able to hear the case because it is between citizens of different states. | | | Each state has the power to set its own amount in controversy requirements for its own courts, but every state must offer some outlet for citizens to sue for violations of their rights, even if they are seeking no money. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amount_in_controversy
|
|
| |
| | Mattox Opinion No. JM-409 |
| | The proposed amendments could be viewed as expanding, as a practical matter, the jurisdictional amount of the county courts and justice courts. | | | The amount in controversy is usually the controlling factor in determining jurisdiction among the various courts. | | | In contrast, the jurisdictional amount in controversy for statutory county courts depends upon the language of the statutes which create the particular courts. |
|
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op47mattox/jm-0409.htm
|
|
| |
| | Diversity jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
| | For example, if the dispute is solely over the breach of a contract by which the defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff $10,000, a federal court will dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or remand the case to state court if it arrived via the removal process. | | | Remands are rarely granted if the diversity and amount in controversy requirements are met, but a remand may be granted if non-diverse parties are brought into the litigation, or if the parties settle some claims between them, leaving an amount in controversy below the jurisdictional amount. | | | The determination of whether a party is indispensable is made by the court following the guidelines set forth in Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_jurisdiction
|
|
| |
| | [No title] |
| | Schrader, we stated that a counterclaim that exceeded the necessary amount in controversy was sufficient to bring the entire case within the jurisdiction of the district court, regardless of the lack of jurisdictional averments in the. | | | However, in deciding the case we stated: when the jurisdictional amount is in question, the tendering of a counterclaim in an amount which in itself, or added to the amount claimed in the petition, _________________________________________________________________ federal court, the defendant's counterclaim could be considered for purposes of the jurisdictional amount. | | | Although the amount of the insurance company's claim clearly did not meet the amount in controversy minimum that was then an amount in excess of $10,000, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional requirement was met because of the $14,035 counterclaim. |
|
http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1748p.txt
|
|
| |
| | law.com - Decision |
| | And, as none contest that the amount here in controversy crosses § 1332's threshold of $75,000 when all allowable attorney's fees are attributed exclusively to the class representatives, we affirm the refusal to remand this case to the state court of origin, and return it to the district court for further proceedings. | | | The judgment of the district court denying remand to state court is affirmed, and this case is returned to the district court for further proceedings in that forum. | | | Therefore, even though the general rule is that interest and court costs are not includable in calculating the amount in controversy, *fn34 attorney's fees are includable when the state statute allowing cost shifting expressly defines the allowable expenses of litigation to include attorney's fees, *fn35 especially when the plaintiffs expressly pray for recovery of costs. |
|
http://www.law.com/jsp/decisionstate.jsp?id=1032128739906
|
|
| |
| | No. 01-896: Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley - Amicus (Merits) |
| | Yet, if the amount in controversy were measured only from the plaintiff's perspective, a defendant could not remove the case to federal court, even though the defendant stood to lose more than the jurisdictional amount from an adverse state court judgment. | | | In examining the question of diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332, the court of appeals observed that "the sole jurisdictional question is whether the minimum amount in controversy required to maintain a diversity suit in federal court is present." The court noted that the diverse citizenship of the parties was not contested. | | | In addition, measuring the amount in controversy from the perspective of either party promotes the symmetry that Congress has sought to achieve between out-of-state plaintiffs and out-of-state defendants with respect to access to federal court in diversity cases. |
|
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/3mer/1ami/2001-0896.mer.ami.html
|
|
| |
| | [No title] |
| | Wiemers argues that this response is evidence that the requisite jurisdictional amount is not in controversy. | | | the defendant is required to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. | | | In contrast, where the complaint specifies an amount of punitive damages being sought greater than the jurisdictional amount, the court "has subject matter jurisdiction unless it is clear beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiff would under no circumstances be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount." Anthony v. |
|
http://www.iand.uscourts.gov/iand/decisions.nsf/4bcc4c2eacc565898625693e005be797/8c95a95d87bc707086256bcf004b6567
|
|
| |
| | Coventry Sewage Assocs. v. Dworkin Realty Co. |
| | The court found that the maximum amount recoverable on the plaintiff's theory never varied, and noted that the correct amount in controversy was ascertainable at the time the action was filed. | | | Thus, the sum certain in controversy was lower than the jurisdictional minimum and the court ordered the case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. | | | The plaintiff alleged an amount of damages sufficient to permit the defendant to remove the case to federal court. |
|
http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/nov95/95-1410.01a.html
|
|
| |
| | Coverage and Appeals - Amount In Controversy |
| | The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act (MMA) allows for an annual increase in the amount in controversy requirements for both ALJ appeals and appeals to federal court starting with hearing requests and federal court appeals filed on or after January 1, 2005. | | | Medicare requires that a certain “amount in controversy” remain outstanding in order for a beneficiary to appeal a denial of a claim to the administrative law judge (ALJ) level of review. | | | BIPA reduced the amount needed to request an appeal involving hospital services from $200 to $100, and reduced the amount needed to request an appeal of claims under Part B from $500 to $100. |
|
http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/CoverageAndAppeals_AmntInControversy.htm
|
|
| |
| | [No title] |
| | The sole issue before the court is whether the $50,000.00 amount in controversy requirement of diversity jurisdiction is met. | | | As a general rule, the amount in controversy in an action which is removed based on diversity of citizenship should be measured "at both the time of commencement [of the action in state court] and the time of removal." Sayers v. | | | Applying the principle to the present case, the court accepts Plaintiff's stipulation that the total amount of compensatory and punitive damages sought by her complaint is less than $50,000.00. |
|
http://www.law.sc.edu/dsc/is0228.htm
|
|
| |
| | [No title] |
| | The determination shall be based on the total amount of damages, and the judge shall not consider questions of liability or comparative negligence or other defenses." [**8] The trial court is not constrained to accept plaintiffs' demand for damages as the measure of the amount in controversy. | | | Where the amount in controversy incontestably exceeds $ 50,000, a matter may be assigned to arbitration without error pursuant to a stipulation by the parties. | | | Sess.) Mar. 1, 1978 [the amount has been subsequently [*1219] increased to $ 50,000].) The discretion is to be exercised at a conference, which implies there is need for interaction between the parties and the court and for the consideration of matter outside the pleadings. |
|
http://www.freemanfirm.com/Case-Sharples.txt
|
|
| |
| | 98-8094 -- Adams v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co. -- 09/19/2000 |
| | Defendant's brief did not discuss the amount in controversy, and plaintiff's only mention of it was a cryptic assertion that the prayer for relief in the complaint was sufficient because it constituted an unchallenged general allegation that the amount in controversy was over the minimum. | | | Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. | | | In the course of a hearing on that issue (at which all present agreed the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000), the district court and counsel reviewed some of the factual allegations in the complaint. |
|
http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-8094.htm
|
|
| |
| | [No title] |
| | The matter in controversy provision of 28 U.S.C. 1332 requires that each plaintiff in a class action have a claim that meets the statutory matter in controversy requirement in order for the federal court to exercise jurisdiction over the claim. | | | [22] The district court refused to aggregate the claims to meet the statutory amount needed for jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. | | | The district court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a civil action if the action is an (1) intrastate action, [186] (2) a limited scope case, [187] or (3) a state action case. |
|
http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/kaufmann523.htm
|
|
| |
| | HALLEX i-2-4-50 |
| | In a Part B case, the amount in controversy after the carrier hearing is controlling, rather than the amount initially at issue. | | | In a Part A case, the amount in controversy after the reconsideration determination is controlling, rather than the amount initially at issue. | | | If the ALJ holds a hearing and subsequently finds that the amount in controversy is less than the required amount, the ALJ will dismiss the RH and not rule on the substantive issues involved in the appeal. |
|
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-02/I-2-4-50.html
|
|
| |
| | 99-2131 -- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. -- 05/29/2001 |
| | Because the Martins were convinced the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction, they did not want to expend the resources necessary to proceed in federal court to a judgment on the merits, only to have the case remanded to state court on appeal for lack of jurisdiction. | | | Defendants have failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy, and the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. | | | We have held that "[t]he amount in controversy is ordinarily determined by the allegations of the complaint, or, where they are not dispositive, by the allegations in the notice of removal." Laughlin, 50 F.3d at 873. |
|
http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/99-2131.htm
|
|
| |
| | MARTIN v. FRANKLIN CAPITAL |
| | The amount in controversy requirement has since been increased to $75,000 and applies to cases filed on or after January 17, 1997. | | | In support of their motion to remove to federal court, defendants contended that "punitive damage claims in a class action suit may be considered in the aggregate when determining the amount in controversy." Id. at 3. | | | Based on this precedent, we joined these other circuits in concluding that the amount in controversy requirement in a class action suit may not be satisfied by aggregating punitive damages. |
|
http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/10th/022048.html
|
|
| |
| | Meritcare Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. |
| | Even though actual damages may not be established until later in the litigation, the amount in controversy is measured as of the date of removal, a practice similar to that in original jurisdiction suits where the inquiry is directed to the time when the complaint is filed. | | | Thus, if it develops that the requisite amount in controversy was never present, even if that fact is not established until the case is on appeal, the judgment of the District Court cannot stand. | | | In assessing the amount in controversy, it is also important to bear in mind that the parties may not confer jurisdiction by consent, see United Indus. |
|
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990209/983032.htm
|
|
| |
| | TLPJ - Briefs - Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley - June 5, 2002 |
| | The power reserved to the states, under the Constitution (Amendment 10), to provide for the determination of controversies in their courts, may be restricted only by the action of Congress in conformity to the judiciary section of the Constitution (Article 3). | | | For that reason, the court refused to calculate the amount in controversy as to just the named plaintiff based upon the classwide injunctive relief she had requested in her actual class action suit. | | | Crucially, this must be done in the context of the actual class action suit before the district court and the classwide injunctive relief sought in that suit, not based upon a hypothetical and highly unlikely suit in which an individual class member seeks classwide injunctive relief, as Petitioners and their supporters urge. |
|
http://www.tlpj.org/briefs/mccauley.amicus.htm
|
|
| |
| | Daniels v. Philip Morris |
| | Where the complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages, the removing defendants must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. | | | [**5] that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied in the instant case, the Court must first determine whether defendants must prove that each class member's claims comply with the $ 75,000 requirement. | | | It would allow individuals with claims which do not independently satisfy the amount in controversy requirement to bootstrap those insufficient claims into federal court by joining their claims to a class action where at least one member of the plaintiff class meets the amount in controversy requirement. |
|
http://ash.org/danielsvphilipmorris.html
|
|
| |
| | Aggregation of Class Action Claims to Meet 28 U.S.C. § 1332¹s Amount-in-Controversy Requirement |
| | Defendants successfully argued that the entire plaintiff class had a common and undivided interest in the disgorgement fund, such that the value of the entire fund constituted the amount in controversy, and were thereby able to establish federal court jurisdiction. | | | The Cardizem court blindly followed the Aetna DC court in finding plaintiffs' request for disgorgement of the amounts whereby defendants were allegedly unjustly enriched to assert a common and undivided right. | | | "Calculation of the amount in controversy in a class action is no simple task, and is determined by … [combining] the plaintiff's compensatory damages along with the plaintiff's pro rata share of attorneys' fees, punitive damages, and the cost of injunctive relief."22/ "Simple task" is of course a relative term. |
|
http://classactionreportslaw.lawoffice.com/CM/Articles/Articles34.asp
|
|
| |
| | FILED |
| | do not count towards the amount in controversy unless they are allowed for by statute or contract. | | | determining the amount in controversy is proper, we decline to pass judgment today on whether such | | | regarding §1332's amount in controversy requirement has arisen in the context of removal from state |
|
http://birminghambar.org/data/SlipOpinions/11thCir/02-14158.htm
|
|
| |
| | EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC. |
| | The First Circuit ruled that the girl, but not her family, had alleged the requisite amount, and then held that supplemental jurisdiction over the family’s claims was improper because original jurisdiction is lacking in a diversity case if one plaintiff fails to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. | | | Section 1367(a) is a broad grant of supplemental jurisdiction over other claims within the same case or controversy, as long as the action is one in which district courts would have original jurisdiction. | | | Thus, §1367(a)’s threshold requirement is satisfied in cases, such as these, where some but not all of the plaintiffs in a diversity action allege a sufficient amount in controversy. |
|
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-70.ZS.html
|
|
| |
| | Amount in Controversy Problems |
| | Plaintiff's claim must be dismissed for failure to meet the amount in controversy requirement unless it appears to a legal certainty that Plaintiff will recover more than $75,000. | | | Is the amount in controversy requirement met in each of the following cases? | | | Please assume that diversity is otherwise proper and that there are no common undivided interests involved in the action; |
|
http://www.law.missouri.edu/devine/amount.htm
|
|
| |
| | Description of Proof of amount in controversy |
| | Where the power of any court of appeals to review a case depends upon the amount or value in controversy, such amount or value, if not otherwise satisfactorily disclosed upon the record, may be shown and ascertained by the oath of a party to the case or by other competent evidence. | | | > US Codes > Judiciary and Judicial Procedure > REVIEW&mMISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS > Proof of amount in controversy |
|
http://attorneylaw.learnwithzac.com/uscodes/description-28-579.htm
|
|
| |
| | In the case of M. F. (June 17, 2004) |
| | The ALJ dismissed the case because the amount in controversy did not exceed $100. | | | In this case, the billed amount for the single denied visit on December 9, 2002 was $160. | | | According to section 1869 of the Social Security Act, the required amount in controversy for appeals to an Administrative Law Judge in a Medicare Part A case is $100. |
|
http://www.hhs.gov/dab/macdecision/mf.htm
|
|
| |
| | SB243 - Removes the Minimum Amount In Controversy Requirement in Arbitration Agreements |
| | SB 243 - This act would remove the requirement in arbitration agreements that the amount in controversy be greater than the maximum amount allowed in small claims court actions ($3,000). | | | Removes the Minimum Amount In Controversy Requirement in Arbitration Agreements | | | SB243 - Removes the Minimum Amount In Controversy Requirement in Arbitration Agreements |
|
http://www.senate.mo.gov/97info/bills/SB243.htm
|
|
| |
| | United Flight 93 Secondary Debris Field |
| | Comment: In the case of Flight 427 it was determined there was no midair breakup. | | | All the major components of the aircraft were found in a 350 foot diameter of the crash. | | | If the aircraft has come down vertically with relatively low energy, the wreckage will be contained in a relatively small area, dependent on the size of the aircraft, of course. |
|
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html
|
|
| |
| | Do Web search engines suppress controversy? |
| | Westlaw, that contain exclusively controversial matters and disputes. | | | Controversies may make a critical difference in life–altering decisions. | | | Identify a controversial subtopic, then define a query using specific keywords for the controversy, and query the same engines in the same amounts. |
|
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue9_1/gerhart
|
|
| |
| | Untitled Document |
| | SLC CORPORATION vs. UTAH DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY CASE NUMBER 009906336 Small Claim Amount in Controversy $85.00 Plaintiff - SLC CORPORATION Defendant - UTAH DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SLC, UT 84119 | | | WARREN H KNOWLTON vs. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CASE NUMBER 000904959 Personal Injury Amount in Controversy $ 750000.00 Plaintiff - WARREN H KNOWLTON Represented by: JERRY D FENN Defendant - STATE OF UTAH Defendant - UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT Defendant - SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION | | | SLC CORPORATION vs. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CASE NUMBER 009908119 Small Claim Plaintiff - SLC CORPORATION Defendant - BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SLC, UT 84111 Amount in Controversy $85.00 |
|
http://www.wildutah.net/10-4-00/htmldocs/Suing.htm
|
|
| |
| | Mao Zedong |
| | All the author's opinions, and his most controversial reviews of any situation have to remain unjustified, and they do remain unjustified. | | | Even among those who find Mao's to be either unworkable or abhorrent there an acknowledgement that Mao was one of most brilliant political and military strategists of 20th century and Mao's military writings continue have a large amount of influence both those who seek to create an insurgency those who seek to crush an insurgency. | | | There is much more consensus on Mao's as a military strategist and tactician during Chinese Civil War and the Korean War. |
|
http://www.freeglossary.com/Mao_Zedong
|
|
| |
| | Orson Welles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
| | During his career he won one Oscar and was nominated for a further four. | | | This generated a considerable amount of buzz, especially on Ain't It Cool News, but the rumor has since been proven false. | | | Welles was once again the centre of controversy with his first film, Citizen Kane ( 1941). |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Welles
|
|
| |
| | Brethren Assemblies Portals and Best Links |
| | One of Rutherford's books that caused a great amount of controversy was the seventh volume of the Studies in the Scriptures. | | | Between 1921 and 1941, Rutherford was to write twenty books and numerous pamphlets, which would slowly revise the doctrine and structure left him by Russell" (Encyclopedia of American Religions, G. Melton, Vol. | | | Russell adopted many of his doctrines from the Seventh-Day Adventists, but the JWs began to emphasize door-to-door evangelism and literature distribution after Russell's death and subsequent leadership assumption by Joseph Franklin Rutherford. |
|
http://www.brethrenassembly.com/JW1.html
|
|
|
