Legal Opinion

Crockett v. Overfield

District Court, D. Idaho

Decided April 12, 1938PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAVANAH, District Judge.

■ The question for decision presented on the motion to remand is that the diversity of citizenship and the.requisite jurisdictional amount do not appear from the face of the complaint, which are necessary to give this court jurisdiction.

The nature of-the action as appearing from the complaint is one which involves the right and title to certain tracts of land which it is alleged that Franklin county, without authority, conveyed to the defendant for a consideration of $4 in cash and the unconditional release by the defendant of all special improvement bonds held against…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v. SwanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  3. Gold-Washing and Water Co. v. KeyesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  4. Stevens v. NicholsSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  5. Continental Insurance v. RhoadsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Davenport v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
  2. Daland v. Hewitt Soap Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
  3. Seber v. Spring Oil Co.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1940
  4. Davenport v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
  5. Griffith v. EnochsDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1942

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

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

Powered by the Exa API