Freeland v. Liberty Mutual Fire 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 when amount in controversy was exactly $75,000, a federal court lacks diversity jurisdiction
• holding that amount in controversy of exactly $75,000 fails by “one penny” to meet diversity jurisdictional requirement of “exceed[ing] the sum or value of $75,000”
• recognizing that in declaratory judgment actions “it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation,” or in other words, “the value of the consequences which may result from the litigation”
• explaining that when the amount in controversy is exactly $75,000, it is “exactly one penny short of the jurisdictional minimum”
• vacating district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanding with instructions to remand to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
• vacating judgment for lack of subject matter 15 jurisdiction when the insurer conceded the policy required a $25,000 payment but disagreed 16 that the insured was entitled to $100,000 in coverage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).