Old Diamond Coal Co. v. Denney

How courts have described this case

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

• applying preponderance of the evidence standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2) where plaintiff’s complaint asserted damages not exceeding $74,500
• remanding to state court based in part on “the Plaintiffs’ counsel’s consistent representations, as an officer of the court, that their damages do not exceed, nor will the Plaintiffs seek more than, $74,500”
• “[T]he court takes seriously the Plaintiffs’ consistent representations through counsel of their own damages as not exceeding $74,500.”
• “[T]he court finds it must evaluate whether the [d]efendants have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000.”
• “[T]he court finds it must evaluate whether the Defendants have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000.”
• “[T]he court takes seriously Plaintiffs’ consistent representations through counsel of their own damages as not exceeding $74,500 . . . as counsel for Plaintiffs have a duty of candor to the tribunal, and therefore the court takes these representations as true and correct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).