Citation network
Healy Vs. Ratta
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 30, 1934
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. 263 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Healy v. RattaSearch
-
U.S. 263 (1934) Healy v. RattaSearch
-
Smith v. WilsonSearch
-
with them or with his business outside the city. The controversy here is that defined by the pleadings, see Smith v. AdamsSearch
-
amount is involved, even though their decision turns on the same question of law. Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. KaratzSearch
-
New England Mortgage Co. v. GaySearch
-
Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. SmithSearch
-
Missouri R. Co. v. WardSearch
-
because the penalty for nonpayment, which has not been incurred, exceeds that amount. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
resisted, is the matter in controversy, since payment of it would avoid the penalty and end the dispute. See Ross v. PrentissSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
with the statute or order assailed can the penalty be included as any part of the matter in controversy. See McNeil v. SouthernSearch
-
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. OgdenSearch
-
Barry v. EdmundsSearch
-
to the payment of any tax, the right to do the business or the injury to it is the matter in controversy. Scott v. DonaldSearch
-
Bitterman v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Hunt v. NewSearch
-
Gallardo v. QuestellSearch
-
may involve such a threat of irreparable injury as to satisfy the requirements of equity jurisdiction. See Matthews v. RodgersSearch
-
powers of a federal court, affords no measure of the value of the matter in controversy. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. railroadSearch
-
penalty or loss which payment of the tax would avoid, determines the jurisdiction. See Washington & Georgetown R. Co. v. DistrictSearch
-
Elliott v. EmpireSearch
-
indicated by the successive acts of Congress regulating the jurisdiction of federal courts supports it. Compare Davis v. MillsSearch
-
be restricted only by the action of Congress in conformity to the judiciary sections of the Constitution. See Kline v. BurkeSearch
-
they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined. See Matthews v. RodgersSearch
-
Elgin v. MarshallSearch
-
of the tax, not its capitalized value, is the measure of the jurisdictional amount. Washington & Georgetown R. Co. v. DistrictSearch
-
Holt v. IndianaSearch
-
Atlantic Coast Line v. RailroadSearch
-
Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. v. NattinSearch
-
Wright v. MutualSearch
-
Elliott v. EmpireSearch
-
the matter in controversy is the validity of a permanent exemption by contract from an annual property tax, Berryman v. WhitmanSearch
-
Riverside & Atlantic R. Co. v. RiversideSearch
-
commission directing a railroad to construct and maintain an unremunerative spur track. Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
an unlimited time is more than a limited number of the annual payments demanded. Compare Glenwood Light & Water Co. v. MutualSearch
-
the burden which rests on a defendant who challenges the plaintiff's allegation of the jurisdictional amount, see Hunt v. NewSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Healy v. RattaSearch
-
Smith v. WilsonSearch
-
Smith v. AdamsSearch
-
Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. KaratzSearch
-
Mississippi & Missouri R. Co. v. WardSearch
-
Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
See Ross v. PrentissSearch
-
See McNeil v. SouthernSearch
-
Bitterman v. LouisvilleSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial