Citation network
Snyder Vs. Harris
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 25, 1969
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
-
U.S. 332 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Snyder v. HarrisSearch
-
U.S. 332 (1969) Snyder v. HarrisSearch
-
for the Eighth Circuit, following a somewhat similar decision by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Alvarez v. PanSearch
-
aggregation substantially predates the 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In 1911, this Court said in Troy Rank v. WhiteheadSearch
-
U.S. 39, 222 U. S. 40 . By 1916, this Court was able to say, in Pinel v. PinelSearch
-
that separate and distinct claims could not be aggregated to meet the required jurisdictional amount. In Clark v. PaulSearch
-
of this very kind that the doctrine that distinct claims could not be aggregated was originally enunciated. Troy Bank v. WhiteheadSearch
-
In Sibbach v. WilsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
claims. This judicial interpretation has been uniform since at least the 1832 decision of this Court in Oliver v. AlexanderSearch
-
and have nothing to fear from trying the lawsuit in the courts of their own State. See Supreme Tribe of Ber-Hur v. CaubleSearch
-
transfer into the federal courts numerous local controversies involving exclusively questions of state law. In Healy v. RattaSearch
-
Together with No. 117, Gas Service Co. v. CoburnSearch
-
claims to reach the jurisdictional amount. E.g., Troy Bank v. WhiteheadSearch
-
Pinel v. PinelSearch
-
right. E.g., Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. GentrySearch
-
may sometimes signify adoption, in my view, the appropriate position on the matter is that stated in Girouard v. UnitedSearch
-
are suggested by the diversity of opinions in Hague v. CIOSearch
-
provides a basis for jurisdiction of such an action against state officials, see Pierson v. RaySearch
-
U. S. 167 (1961), that statute is no help to one challenging purely federal action. Wheeldin v. WheelerSearch
-
Clark v. PaulSearch
-
U. S. 95 (1939). See Thomson v. GaskillSearch
-
Helvering v. ReynoldsSearch
-
The Girouard Case and the Reenactment Rule, 59 Harv.L.Rev. 1277 (1946). In Francis v. SouthernSearch
-
All Amer. Airways, Inc. v. ElderdSearch
-
A notable example is Deckert v. IndependenceSearch
-
on remand, 39 F.Supp. 592 (D.C.E.D.Pa.), rev'd sub nom. Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives v. DeckertSearch
-
See Hansberry v. LeeSearch
-
only if the installments due at the time of suit exceed the jurisdictional amount. E.g., New York Life Ins. Co. v. ViglasSearch
-
is not the accrued damages, but the potential value of full performance. Landers Frary & Clark v. VischerSearch
-
Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. JohnsonSearch
-
Davis v. AmericanSearch
-
See Mississippi Pub. Corp. v. MurphreeSearch
-
Kaplan, supra, n. 1, at 399-400. Cf. Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
members of the class represented by the original parties are citizens of the same State as an adverse party. Stewart v. DunhamSearch
-
class actions, Montgomery Ward & Co. v. LangerSearch
-
Amen v. BlackSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Snyder v. HarrisSearch
-
Alvarez v. PanSearch
-
Troy Rank v. WhiteheadSearch
-
In Clark v. PaulSearch
-
Troy Bank v. WhiteheadSearch
-
State. See Supreme Tribe of Ber-Hur v. CaubleSearch
-
In Healy v. RattaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial