Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rogers Vs. HennepIn County

Rogers vs HennepIn County

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jan-17-1916
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/92484

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
239 U.S. 621
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rogers

Respondent

HennepIn County

Excerpt

rogers v. hennepin county - 239 u.s. 621 (1916) u.s. supreme court rogers v. hennepin county, 239 u.s. 621 (1916) rogers v. hennepin county no. 411 argued december 6, 1915 decided january 17, 1916 239 u.s. 621 appeal from the district court of the united states for the district of minnesota syllabus in an action brought by a number of complainants to restrain the collection of a tax separately assessed against each for under forty dollars, the aggregate exceeding the jurisdictional amount, held that the district court did not have jurisdiction, as the amount as to each complainant was the sum charged against him, and demands against all could not be aggregated in order to confer jurisdiction. wheless v. st. louis, 180 u. s. 379 . the facts, which involve the method of determining the amount in controversy in order to give jurisdiction to the district court, are stated in the opinion. mr. justice mc reynolds delivered the opinion of the court. three complainants, claiming to represent themselves and others like situated (numbering altogether 550), instituted this proceeding in equity against hennepin county, minnesota, and certain of its officers, in the district court of the united states, seeking an injunction to prevent collection of a tax under $40 assessed against each of them, for the year 1913, on account of his membership in the minneapolis chamber of commerce. page 239 u. s. 622 defendants challenged the court's power to entertain the cause upon the ground that the amount in controversy as to each complainant is the sum charged against him, and demands against all cannot be aggregated in order to confer jurisdiction. the district court sustained this objection upon authority of wheless v. st. louis, 180 u. s. 379 , and dismissed the bill. it committed no error in so doing, and its judgment is affirmed.

Full Judgment

Rogers v. Hennepin County - 239 U.S. 621 (1916)
U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U.S. 621 (1916)

Rogers v. Hennepin County

No. 411

Argued December 6, 1915

Decided January 17, 1916

239 U.S. 621

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

SYLLABUS

In an action brought by a number of complainants to restrain the collection of a tax separately assessed against each for under forty dollars, the aggregate exceeding the jurisdictional amount, held that the district court did not have jurisdiction, as the amount as to each complainant was the sum charged against him, and demands against all could not be aggregated in order to confer jurisdiction. Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379 .

The facts, which involve the method of determining the amount in controversy in order to give jurisdiction to the district court, are stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE Mc REYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Three complainants, claiming to represent themselves and others like situated (numbering altogether 550), instituted this proceeding in equity against Hennepin county, Minnesota, and certain of its officers, in the district court of the United States, seeking an injunction to prevent collection of a tax under $40 assessed against each of them, for the year 1913, on account of his membership in the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce.

Page 239 U. S. 622

Defendants challenged the court's power to entertain the cause upon the ground that the amount in controversy as to each complainant is the sum charged against him, and demands against all cannot be aggregated in order to confer jurisdiction. The district court sustained this objection upon authority of Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379 , and dismissed the bill. It committed no error in so doing, and its judgment is

Affirmed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial