Legal Opinion

Dowling v. J. C. Penney Co.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided June 9, 1969No. Civ. A. No. 67-992PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WEBER, District Judge.

Defendant’s Answer in this case raised the defense of lack of jurisdictional amount in controversy, and this was repeated in the pretrial narrative. Under the pretrial rules of this court after all discovery is closed the parties must file a pretrial narrative statement and a pretrial stipulation covering all of the issues, evidence, witnesses, exhibits, itemization and damages which will be presented at trial, and by which they are limited and bound. This is supplemented by a recorded pretrial conference. The issue of the requisite jurisdictional amount was…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  2. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Healy v. RattaSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  5. Wetmore v. RymerSupreme Court of the United States · 1898

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Independent Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. PeavyMississippi Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Albright v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
  3. Hirsch v. Jewish War Veterans of United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Turner v. Government Employees Financial Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
  5. Independent Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. PeavyMississippi Supreme Court · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API