Core v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2519,87-2519 |
| Citation | 847 F.2d 497 |
| Parties | Ben CORE and Polly Anna Core, Appellants, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Ben Core, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellants.
Gary S. Wann and Robert E. McCallum, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, McMILLIAN and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ben Core and Polly Anna Core appeal from the district court's 1 order granting summary judgment to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (SWB), 673 F.Supp. 974. For reversal, the Cores argue that the district court erred in (1) granting summary judgment to SWB because there were material issues of fact in dispute and because the district court misapplied Arkansas law; (2) refusing to allow the Cores to voluntarily dismiss the suit without imposition of fees and costs should the Cores refile; (3) denying the Cores' motion to remand the case to state court after the amount of damages sought was amended to under $10,000; and (4) sustaining the validity under the Arkansas Constitution of the relevant statute of limitations, Ark.Stat.Ann. Sec. 77-1636, recodified at Ark.Code Ann. Sec. 23-17-237 (1987). We affirm.
In 1966 the Cores purchased a forty-acre tract of wild, unenclosed land in Arkansas. They did not know the exact boundaries or corners of the tract; however, the location of a SWB underground telephone cable, which had been buried in 1957, was visibly marked and noticed by the Cores who thought it was on adjoining Forest Service land. Approximately sixteen years later, in January 1982, the Cores became interested in determining the exact boundaries of their property and realized that the cable might cross their tract.
Although SWB initially denied that the cable crossed the Cores' land, in 1986 SWB acknowledged that it did, and initiated negotiations with the Cores for the purchase of an easement. To protect their interests, the Cores filed this suit in Arkansas state court on January 16, 1987, alleging trespass and seeking possession of that portion of their property being used by SWB. SWB asserted the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations, 2 and removed the case to federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
The district court denied the Cores' motion to remand the case to state court after the amount of damages sought was amended to under the $10,000 jurisdictional amount, and conditioned voluntary dismissal without prejudice upon the Cores' payment of fees and costs if they refiled the action in state or federal court. On November 9, 1987, the district court granted SWB's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the suit was time-barred. In a thorough discussion, the court rejected the Cores' arguments that Ark.Stat.Ann. Sec. 77-1636 was unconstitutional, and that they did not have adequate notice that the cable actually crossed their land until 1986. The court noted that it was not the location of the cable the Cores did not know about, but rather, the boundaries of their own land. The court concluded that under Arkansas law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCorkindale v. American Home Assur. Co./AIC
...less than the jurisdictional amount. Id. Defendants cite in further support of this proposition Core v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 847 F.2d 497, 498 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam); Becker v. Crounse Corp., 822 F.Supp. 386 (W.D.Ky. 1993); and De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 790 F.Supp. 693, 694......
-
Feller v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.
...U.S. 381, 390, 118 S.Ct. 2047, 141 L.Ed.2d 364 (1998); McLain v. Andersen Corp., 567 F.3d 956, 965 (8th Cir.2009); Core v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 847 F.2d 497, 498 (8th Cir.1988). Any “events occurring subsequent to removal which reduce the amount recoverable, whether beyond the plaintiff's con......
-
International Paper v. Mci Worldcom Network
...Co. v. Poindexter, 245 Ark. 624, 433 S.W.2d 833 (1968); Core v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 673 F.Supp. 974 (W.D.Ark.1987), aff'd, 847 F.2d 497 (8th Cir.1988). In any event, the claim accrued no later than March 30, 1995, the date on which IP Timberlands Operating Company, Ltd., conveyed to......
-
Greatamerica Leasing Corp. v. Rohr-Tippe Motors
...is determined by the petition as it was at the time of the removal from the state court."); see also Core v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 847 F.2d 497, 498 (8th Cir.1988) (holding district court did not err when it retained jurisdiction of a case even though the plaintiff amended his petition below j......
-
Amount in controversy and removal: current trends and strategic considerations.
...(E.D. Pa.). [34.] 783 F.Supp. 1315 (D. Kan. 1992). [35.] See, e.g., Core v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., 673 F.Supp. 974 (W.D. Ark. 1987), aff'd, 847 F.2d 497 (8th Cir. 1988) (subsequent amendment reducing claim below jurisdictional minimum does not warrant remand); Lewis v. Charles H. Bentz Assoc. ......