Legal Opinion

Amchanitzky v. Sinnott

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided February 5, 1934No. 223PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The defendant’s motion to dismiss was grounded on (1) lack of jurisdiction, and (2) failure of the petition to state a cause of action. The District Court granted the motion upon the second ground without passing upon the former. 3 F. Supp. 993. It should have based dismissal upon lack of jurisdiction. The rule that District Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction in original eases of mandamus is too firmly established to require us to consider its origin or whether the point might, or should, have been decided otherwise. Knapp v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 197 U. S. 536, 25 S. Ct.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. HagerSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  2. Knapp v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
  3. Waldo v. PoeDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1926
  4. Amchanitzky v. CarrougherDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1933

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Petrowski v. NuttCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1947
  2. United States Ex Rel. Vassel v. DurningCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  3. Howell v. BrownDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API