Legal Opinion
Gulbenkian v. Gulbenkian
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 3, 1940PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BONDY, District Judge.
The defendants move to dismiss the action on the ground that the amount actually in controversy is less than $3,000, exclusive of interest- and costs.
No facts are alleged in support of the motion, which denies the formal allegation of the complaint as to jurisdictional amount. The defendants contend that it appears from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is not involved.
The plaintiff must plead the facts essential to show jurisdiction, and he hears the burden of showing that the matter in controxersy exceeds the sum or value of $3,000, exclusive of interest and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Gibbs v. BuckSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- KVOS, Inc. v. Associated PressSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Buck v. GallagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
3Cited by8 opinions
- Williams v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1953
- Smith v. SperlingDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1953
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. SchumacherDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1944
- Shaffer v. Coty, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1960
- Troupiansky v. Henry Disston & Sons, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.