Nelson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an interrogatory answer revealing that plaintiff sought $250,000 in general damages was sufficient summary judgment-type evidence to establish the requisite jurisdictional amount
• holding that while the plaintiff plead general categories of damages, the amount in controversy was not facially apparent because of the lack of specificity in the alleged injuries sustained
• relying on plaintiff’s post-removal answers to interrogatories to find the amount in controversy was satisfied
• “[I]f it is facially apparent from the petition that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 at the time of removal, post-removal affidavits, stipulations, and amendments reducing the amount do not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.”
• “[I]f it is facially apparent from the petition that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 at the time of removal, post-removal affidavits, stipulations, and amendments reducing the amount do not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.”
• “[I]f it is facially apparent from the petition that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 at the time of removal, post-removal affidavits, stipulations, and amendments reducing the amount do not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).