Walter Jaconski v. Avisun Corporation and W. v. Pangborne & Co., Inc

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that jurisdictional amount in controversy is to be ascertained from “the amount demanded by [the plaintiff], if that demand is found to have been made in good faith”
• stating that jurisdictional amount in controversy is to be ascertained from “the amount demanded by [the plaintiff], if that demand is found to have been made in good faith”
• stating that jurisdictional amount in controversy is to be ascertained from “the amount demanded by [the plaintiff], if that demand is found to have been made in good faith”
• \Except in the plainest cases the issue of jurisdictional amount should not be decided if the ruling constitutes at the same time a decision on the merits.\ Id. at 935
• “Except in the plainest cases the issue of jurisdictional amount should not be decided if the ruling constitutes at the same time a decision on the merits.” Id. at 935
• “The test then is not what amount the plaintiff claims . . . but rather, whether it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that he cannot recover an amount above the jurisdictional minimum.” (quoting Red Cab, 303 U.S. at 288–89)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).