Legal Opinion

Parker v. Moitzfield

District Court, E.D. Virginia

Decided March 30, 1990No. Civ. A. 90-0185-APublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELLIS, District Judge.

Background

The dismissal motion before the Court in this diversity indemnity action places subject matter jurisdiction in question. In essence, the jurisdictional amount requirement is satisfied only if the complaint’s allegations warrant plaintiffs’ reliance on the anticipatory breach doctrine. For the reasons stated here, plaintiffs’ invocation of this doctrine fails to state a viable claim. And because this plainly appears on the face of the complaint, the requisite $50,000 jurisdictional amount is not met.

The pertinent facts may be succinctly stated.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Annie Wiggins v. North American Equitable Life Assurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1981
  4. Smithers v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  5. Smyth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1937

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Keefe Co. v. Americable International, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
  2. Sopkin v. LopattoDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API