Frederick v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that defendant does need to show that punitive damages are “more likely than not,” but that they are merely “possible”
• holding that a defendant can meet the preponderance of the evidence standard by “calculations from the complaint’s allegations.”
• explaining that jurisdictional amount in controversy “is not the amount the plaintiff will recover, but rather an estimate of the amount that will be put at issue in the course of the litigation” (quotation cleaned up)
• considering it “improper[]” for court to “look beyond jurisdictional matters and consider the merits of the claims” when determining amount in controversy
• “[T]here is no logical reason why we should demand more from a CAFA defendant than other parties invoking federal jurisdic- tion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• \[T]here is no logical reason why we should demand more from a CAFA defendant than other parties invoking federal jurisdiction.\ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).