JIM L. NAPPER AND WIFE, JO ANN NAPPER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
ANDERSON, HENLEY, SHIELDS, BRADFORD & PRITCHARD, ETC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction because there was no basis for federal jurisdiction, including pendent jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Texas federal district court, but both plaintiffs and defendants were citizens of Texas, thus lacking diversity jurisd…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bell V. Hood cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
On consideration of appellants’ petition for rehearing, the panel adheres to its decision reported in 500 F. 2d 634, that the district court properly dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, 1946, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939, does not require a different result.
Admittedly, the defendants have all along been citizens of Texas. It now appears that on August 23, 1971, the date of filing the complaint in the Texas federal district court, the plaintiffs were also citizens of Texas. The plaintiffs cannot complain that in good faith they considered themselves citizens of Arkansas, and were surprised by the contrary ruling, for on September 2, 1971, ten days after the complaint was filed, defendants moved to dismiss for lack of diversity. The amended complaint filed two years later, on September 25, 1973, sought recovery also on a claimed federal cause of action which we held to be nonexistent. There was never any basis of federal jurisdiction sufficient to support pendent jurisdiction of the state law claim.1
The panel, therefore, declines to grant appellants’ petition for rehearing.
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.
. See Hurn v. Oursler, 1938, 289 U.S. 238, 53 S.Ct. 586, 77 L.Ed. 1148; Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 1966, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218; Rosado v. Wyman, 1970, 397 U.S. 397, 404, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442; Moor v. County of Alameda, 1973, 411 U.S. 693, 710, et seq., 93 S.Ct. 1785, 36 L.Ed.2d 596. Cf. Lazier v. Weitzenfeld, 1975, 505 F. 2d 896 ; Perry v. Jones, 1975, 506 F. 2d 778 .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richard S. Miller & Sons, Inc. v. The United States, 537 F.2d 446 (Ct. Cl. 1976)
-
Sunset Fuel Co. v. United States, 519 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1975)
-
Ralph W. Fullerton Co. v. United States, 550 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1966)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1946)
- Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1970)
- Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1933)
- Moor v. Cnty. OF Alameda, 411 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1973)
- Melvin Perry and next friend v. Jones, 506 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Jim L. Napper and wife v. Anderson, 500 F.2d 634 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Lazier v. Weitzenfeld, 505 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1975)