Thomson v. Gaskill, No. 139
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FRANKFURTER |
| Citation | 315 U.S. 442,86 L.Ed. 951,62 S.Ct. 673 |
| Parties | THOMSON v. GASKILL et al |
| Decision Date | 02 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 139 |
v.
GASKILL et al.
Page 443
Mr. Wymer Dressler, Mr. Wilfred M. McFarland, and Mr. Robert D. Neely, all of Omaha, Neb., for petitioners.
Mr. S. L. Winters, of Omaha, Neb., for respondents.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether the record shows an essential requisite of the jurisdiction of the District Court, namely, that the 'matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000'. Judicial Code, § 24(1), 28 U.S.C. § 41(1), 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1). There were other questions which, in the view we take of the case, need not be stated.
Respondents, forty-one conductors and brakemen employed by the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company,
Page 444
brought suit against the railroad and one Kimball, an employee of the road, in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs 'belong to' the trackage of the railroad called the Nebraska Division; that 'the controversy arises over the division of seniority rights between the Nebraska Division to which plaintiffs belong, and the Sioux City Division to which the defendant George Kimball belongs, over the Northwestern road from Omaha, Nebraska to Sioux City, Iowa'; that trains running between these points moved over 31 miles of the Nebraska Division and 70 miles of the Sioux City Division; that prior to May 1, 1930, seniority rights of the plaintiffs were governed by certain contracts 'referred to sometimes as the 'Schedule of Wages and Rules of Compensation for Conductors and Trainmen", which provided that when trains were operated over more than one seniority district, the 'percentage of miles run over each division will govern in assignment to such runs'; that since May 1, 1930, the railroad has assigned all of the work on the Omaha-Sioux City run to the Sioux City Division; that although the railroad insists that the plaintiffs' seniority rights have been abrogated 'by an alleged agreement between the said defendant railroad trainmen, and the order of Railway Conductors', the plaintiffs are not bound by such agreement; and that on account of the 'wrongful deprivation' of their seniority rights, the plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of $3,000.
The railroad's answer stated that the plaintiffs had only such seniority rights as were derived from agreements between the railroad and the Order of Railroad Conductors and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; that the agreements could be abrogated or modified by the railroad and the unions without the consent of the plaintiffs; that the track between Omaha and Blair, located on the Omaha-
Page 445
Sioux City run, was not part of the Nebraska Division of the railroad; that this trackage is owned by the Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Railway Company; that the only part of the Nebraska Division on the run between Omaha and Sioux City is 7.5 miles long; and that the complaint did not show the existence of the required jurisdictional amount. The District Court ordered the plaintiffs to prove that more than $3,000 was involved, and ten of them submitted affidavits. The substance of each affidavit was that since May 1, 1930, the Chicago & Northwestern had 'operated trains over thirty-one miles...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Excel Home Care v. U.S. Dept. of Hhs, No. CIV.A.03-CV-11767-GA.
...the jurisdictional basis for a claim under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction. Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446, 62 S.Ct. 673, 86 L.Ed. 951 (1942); Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1209 (1st Cir.1996); Murphy, 45 F.3d at 522. The First Circuit h......
-
In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, Master File No. CY-91-3015-AAM.
...is challenged pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the burden of proof is on the party seeking to assert such jurisdiction. Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446, 62 S.Ct. 673, 675, 86 L.Ed. 951 (1942). While the plaintiffs might be dissatisfied with the progress being made by those agencies charged ......
-
Meritcare Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., No. 98-3032
...but fall short of establishing a single title or right in which they have a common and undivided interest. See Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446-47, 62 S.Ct. 673, 86 L.Ed. 951 (1942); Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594, 596, 36 S.Ct. 416, 60 L.Ed. 817 In such circumstances, the claims of thos......
-
Shah Bros. Inc v. United States, Court No. 09-00180
...F.2d 746, 747 (Fed. Cir. 1988). However it remains Plaintiff's burden to present evidence to establish jurisdiction. Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446 (1942) ("if a plaintiff's allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of support......
-
In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, Master File No. CY-91-3015-AAM.
...is challenged pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the burden of proof is on the party seeking to assert such jurisdiction. Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446, 62 S.Ct. 673, 675, 86 L.Ed. 951 (1942). While the plaintiffs might be dissatisfied with the progress being made by those agencies charged ......
-
F.T.C. v. Ameridebt, Inc., No. CIV.A.PJM 03-3317.
...that jurisdiction exists. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446, 62 S.Ct. 673, 86 L.Ed. 951 (1942); Chergosky v. Hodges, 975 F.Supp. 799, 800 (E.D.N.C.1997). Where, as here, the motion challenges fede......
-
United States v. Louisiana, Case No. 3:11-cv-00470-JWD-RLB
...dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction." Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001); accord Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446, 62 S. Ct. 673, 675, 86 L. Ed. 951, 955 (1942); cf. Padilla-Mangual v. Pavia Hosp., 516 F.3d 29, 34 (1st Cir. 2008). Yet, district court......
-
In re Pitts, Bankruptcy No. 98-3134.
...merely a defense to liability. Houck & Sons, Inc. v. Transylvania County, 852 F.Supp. 442, 452 (W.D.N.C. 1993) citing Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 447, 62 S.Ct. 673, 676, 86 L.Ed. 951 Ex Parte Young Doctrine Under what has become to be known as the Young Doctrine, a party may sue a sta......
-
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND THE COMMON-LAW SCOPE OF THE CIVIL ACTION.
...as exceptional and extraordinary, calling for narrow construction of the grants"). The Court has so held. See, e.g., Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446 (1942) ('The policy of the statute conferring diversity jurisdiction upon the district courts calls for its strict (68.) See, e.g., Scot......