Blakemore v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., No. 85-1988
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before JOHN R. GIBSON and WOLLMAN; JOHN R. GIBSON |
| Citation | 789 F.2d 616 |
| Parties | Carla BLAKEMORE, Appellant, v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1988 |
Page 616
v.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided April 25, 1986.
J.R. Nash, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
Page 617
Elizabeth J. Robben, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HARPER, * Senior District Judge.
JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
The issue before us is whether Carla Blakemore is a citizen of Arkansas for the purpose of invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 (1982) in her suit against Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (MoPac), a corporation formed under Delaware law with its principal place of business in Missouri. Blakemore filed a personal injury suit against MoPac in the Eastern District of Arkansas on November 25, 1981, took a voluntary nonsuit, and refiled the action in the same court on April 17, 1984. After both filings, MoPac moved for dismissal of the action for failure to establish diversity jurisdiction. After the second filing, the district court 1 granted MoPac's motion, finding that Blakemore was a Missouri citizen. On appeal, Blakemore makes numerous factual assertions to support her contention that she was an Arkansas citizen when she filed her suits, and therefore that diversity exists. We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing her claim. 2
On January 5, 1979, Blakemore was seriously injured in an accident at the MoPac diesel-fuel unloading terminal in North Little Rock, Arkansas. She brought suit against MoPac in Arkansas federal district court on November 25, 1981, invoking diversity jurisdiction. MoPac moved to dismiss the action for failure to establish diversity because Blakemore was, like the corporation, a Missouri citizen. Blakemore took a voluntary non-suit, then refiled her case on April 17, 1984, relying on the Arkansas Saving Statute, Ark.Stat.Ann. Sec. 37-222 (1962 & Supp.1985). MoPac again filed a motion to dismiss, and on July 15, 1984 the district court held a hearing to determine Blakemore's citizenship for diversity purposes.
The district court found that Blakemore was not an Arkansas citizen on the dates she initiated either of the two suits and that she had deliberately misrepresented in the record facts relevant to a determination of her state of citizenship. Focusing on Blakemore's status when she initiated the April 17, 1984 action, the district court found that Blakemore was married to Paul...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quality Refrigerated Services, Inc. v. City of Spencer, No. C 95-4061.
...federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof if diversity of citizenship is challenged. Blakemore v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 789 F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir.1986); Russell v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 325 F.2d 996, 998 (8th Cir.1964); Amoco Rocmount Co. v. Anschutz Corp., 7 F.3d 909, 914 ......
-
Gafford v. General Elec. Co., No. 91-6482
...factual determinations regarding jurisdictional issues for clear error. See Kruso, 872 F.2d at 1421; Blakemore v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 789 F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir.1986); see also Texas Acorn v. Texas Area 5 Health Sys. Agency, Inc., 559 F.2d 1019, 1024 (5th Cir.1977); Siegerist v. Blaw-Knox C......
-
Jones v. Law Firm of Hill and Ponton, No. 6:00-CV-746-ORL31JGG.
...jurisdiction has the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Blakemore v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 789 F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir.1986). Diversity is determined when the suit is instituted, not when the cause of action Page 1355 arose. Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S. ......
-
Eiland v. United States Postal Serv., 4:22-cv-00538-PLC
...an individual's physical presence in the state coupled with an indefinite intention there to remain.” Blakemore v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 789 F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir. 1986). Here, plaintiff has alleged that he lives in New York City, New York, while HPH Milano is located in Pomona, New York......
-
Gafford v. General Elec. Co., No. 91-6482
...factual determinations regarding jurisdictional issues for clear error. See Kruso, 872 F.2d at 1421; Blakemore v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 789 F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir.1986); see also Texas Acorn v. Texas Area 5 Health Sys. Agency, Inc., 559 F.2d 1019, 1024 (5th Cir.1977); Siegerist v. Blaw-Knox C......
-
Quality Refrigerated Services, Inc. v. City of Spencer, No. C 95-4061.
...federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof if diversity of citizenship is challenged. Blakemore v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 789 F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir.1986); Russell v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 325 F.2d 996, 998 (8th Cir.1964); Amoco Rocmount Co. v. Anschutz Corp., 7 F.3d 909, 914 ......
-
Jones v. Law Firm of Hill and Ponton, No. 6:00-CV-746-ORL31JGG.
...jurisdiction has the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Blakemore v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 789 F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir.1986). Diversity is determined when the suit is instituted, not when the cause of action Page 1355 arose. Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S. ......
-
Eiland v. United States Postal Serv., 4:22-cv-00538-PLC
...an individual's physical presence in the state coupled with an indefinite intention there to remain.” Blakemore v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 789 F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir. 1986). Here, plaintiff has alleged that he lives in New York City, New York, while HPH Milano is located in Pomona, New York......