Nixon v. Town Taxi, Inc.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
1Opinion of the Court
MORTON, District Judge.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that it was evident that the necessary jurisdictional amount — $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs — was not in controversy. By agreement of parties,, decision on the motion was postponed until after verdict.
It is settled that an apparent claim on the face of the papers to an amount in excess of the jurisdictional requirement is not conclusive. The claim must be based on “a reasonable expectation” of recovering the required amount. Whether it is of that character is a question of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Barry v. EdmundsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Hanley v. DonoghueSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Wetmore v. RymerSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Williams v. NottawaSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Maxwell v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1888
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Turmine v. West Jersey & Seashore R. Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1930
- Cumberland v. Household Research Corp. of AmericaDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1956
- Burmon & Bolonsky, Inc. v. Luckenbach S. S. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1930