SCOTT ET AL.
v.
FRAZIER ET AL.
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.
North Dakota taxpayers brought suit in federal district court to enjoin payment of public funds and issuance of state bonds, claiming violation of Fourteenth Amendment rights, but alleged no amount in controversy of $3,000 or more for any individual complainant. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's dismissal on the merits and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding that federal question jurisdiction requires the amount in controversy to meet the jurisdictional threshold for each complainant.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by
Mr. Justice Day.
This suit so far as the merits are concerned is like No. 811, just decided, ante, 233. It was brought in the District Court of the United States for the district of North Dakota to enjoin the payment of public funds in the State Treasury and the issuing of state, bonds under the' constitution and laws of North Dakota. We have sufficiently stated the nature of this constitution ánd the laws involved in the opinion in No. 811.
The jurisdiction was invoked because of alleged violátion of rights under the-Fourteenth Amendment. The complainants were taxpayers of North Dakota who alleged that suit was brought on behalf of themselves and all other taxpayers of the State. There was no diversity of citizenship and jurisdiction was rested solely upon the alleged violation of constitutional rights. The District Court rendered a decree dismissing the bill on the merits, the judge stating that he was of opinion that there was no jurisdiction and directing the dismissal on the merits to prevent delay and to permit the suit being brought here by a single appeal.
There is no allegation that the loss or injury to any complainant amounts to the sum of $3,000. It is well settled that in such cases as this the amount in controversy must equal the jurisdictional sum as to each complainant. Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379; Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U. S. 621.
The'District Court was right in its conclusion that there was no jurisdiction. The decree is reversed and the' cause remanded to the District Court with, directions to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1939)…ity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U. S. 283, 288. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178; compare KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U. S. 269. Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379; Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U. S. 594, 596; Scott v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 243. The section is derived from R. S. 563, § 12, which, in turn, originated in § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, as reenacted by § 18 of the Civil Rights Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 144, and referred to in § 1 of the Civil R…
-
Zahn v. Int'l Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1973)…o be the accepted construction [*295] of the controlling statutes, now §§ 1331 and 1332.4 The rule has been applied to forbid aggregation of claims where none of the claimants satisfies the jurisdictional amount, as was the case in Scott v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 243, 244 (1920), for example, where the Court stated the rule to be that “the amount in controversy must equal the jurisdictional sum as to each complainant.” It also requires dismissal of those litigants whose claims do not satisfy the jurisdictional a…1 / 2
-
Lion Bonding & Sur. Co. v. Karatz, 262 U.S. 77 (U.S. 1923)…he case at bar, if several creditors of the company, each with a debt less than $3,000, had joined as plaintiffs, the demands could not have been aggregated in order to confer jurisdiction. Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U. S. 621; Scott v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 243. Nor can Karatz’s allegation that he sued on behalf of others similarly situated help him. Compare Title Guaranty Co. v. Allen, 240 U. S. 136; Eberhard v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 241 Fed. 353, 356.4 Since the bill in this case discloses t…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wheless v. ST. Louis, 180 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1901)
- Rogers v. Hennepin Cnty., 239 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1916)