Knoll v. Knoll, 8140.
| Decision Date | 22 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 8140.,8140. |
| Citation | 350 F.2d 407 |
| Parties | Anna KNOLL and Rose Keller, Appellants, v. Alex KNOLL, Josephine Knoll, Joe Knoll, Adam Knoll, Wendelin Knoll, Mary Bittel, Adolph Knoll, Stephanie Knoll, Margaret Sluga, Casey Jones, and Mobil Oil Company, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Anna Knoll and Rose Keller, pro se.
Tom C. Triplett, Wichita, Kan. (George B. Collins, Oliver H. Hughes, Robert Martin, K. W. Pringle, Jr., W. F. Schell, Robert M. Collins, W. L. Oliver, Jr., W. V. Crank, Wichita, Kan., Thomas M. Burns and Peter J. Wall, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellees.
Richard B. Altman, Dallas, Tex. (Charles B. Wallace, Ross Madole, Donald G. Canuteson, Dallas, Tex., Mark H. Adams, Charles E. Jones, Wm. I. Robinson, J. Ashford Manka, Clifford L. Malone, Mark H. Adams, II, John S. Seeber, Floyd E. Jensen, Robert Hall, Philip L. Bowman and Joe Rolston, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc.
Before PHILLIPS, PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
Appellants filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging, in substance, that they lost their rights of inheritance in their parents' farm in Kansas as a result of the fraud of the defendants. Upon timely motion, the trial court dismissed the action for lack of the requisite diversity of citizenship. The jurisdictional allegation of the complaint states that one of the plaintiffs is a citizen of the District of Columbia, and the other a citizen of the State of Illinois. It also recites that while some of the defendants are citizens of Kansas, other defendants are citizens of the State of Illinois.1 It is obvious there is no diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants who are citizens of Illinois. It has long been held that diversity means "total diversity." That is, all the parties on one side must have citizenship diverse to those on the other side. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 7 U.S. 267, 2 L.Ed. 435; Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 60 S.Ct. 44, 84 L.Ed. 85, rehearing denied 309 U.S. 693, 60 S.Ct. 464, 84 L.Ed. 1034; Wagner v. Flora, 10 Cir., 290 F. 2d 508; 28 U.S.C. § 1332; 1 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 0.60 8.-4, pp. 644-645; Wright, Federal Courts, § 24, pp. 71-72.
We are also in agreement with the trial court's finding that all the parties are indispensable to the lawsuit, and that none could be dropped or realigned.
Affirmed.
1 Paragraph 1 of the complaint reads in part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asselin v. Shawnee Mission Medical Center, Inc., Civ. A. No. 94-2505-KHV.
..."total diversity," meaning that "all the parties on one side must have citizenship diverse to those on the other side." Knoll v. Knoll, 350 F.2d 407, 407 (10th Cir.1965). Plaintiff is a Kansas resident. Defendants Hess and Rick are Kansas residents. Defendant SMMC is a Kansas corporation. D......
-
Oppenheim v. Sterling
...confirmed. We cannot say that the trial court erred in determining that diversity jurisdiction did not exist. Cf. Knoll v. Knoll, 350 F. 2d 407 (10th Cir. 1965), supra. Nor did federal question jurisdiction appear. The amended complaint asserted that in addition to claimed diversity jurisdi......
-
Elders v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware
...of Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 is not present. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 7 U.S. 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806); Knoll v. Knoll, 350 F.2d 407 (10th Cir. 1965). The more serious basis for jurisdiction rests on § 1343, Title 28 U.S.C.A., which provides jurisdiction for civil actions for viol......
-
Harris v. Illinois-California Exp., Inc., ILLINOIS-CALIFORNIA
...v. Moki Oil & Rare Metals Co., 364 F.2d 568 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 960, 87 S.Ct. 393, 17 L.Ed.2d 306 (1966); Knoll v. Knoll, 350 F.2d 407 (10th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 909, 86 S.Ct. 891, 15 L.Ed.2d 664 Once jurisdiction is grounded in diversity, it is not lost by the......