Cases pin-citing Packard v. Provident National Bank · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Packard v. Provident National Bank

Cases pin-citing Packard v. Provident National Bank

Packard v. Provident National Bank  ·  1993  ·  16 pinpoint citations from 16 cases, 12 distinct passages.

DIXIE v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION  ·  2025-08-21  ·  W.D. Pennsylvania  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“The person asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that the case is properly before the court at all stages of the litigation.”
WOOD v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE  ·  2024-11-25  ·  W.D. Pennsylvania  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“The person asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that the case is properly before the court at all stages of the litigation.”
Lingo v. BHI Energy I Power Services  ·  2022-12-13  ·  M.D. Pennsylvania  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“[W]hen it appears that [a punitive damages] claim comprises the bulk of the amount in controversy and may have been colorably asserted solely or primarily for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, that claim should be given particularly close scrutiny.”
VIOLETTE v. INTERBAKE FOODS LLC  ·  2022-05-19  ·  D. Maine  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“[W]hen it appears that [a punitive damage claim] comprises the bulk of the amount in controversy and may have been colorably asserted or primarily for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, that claim should be given particularly close scrutiny.”
CLARK v. APPLIED CARDIAC SYSTEMS INC.  ·  2022-03-16  ·  W.D. Pennsylvania  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“When both actual and punitive damages are recoverable, punitive damages are properly considered in determining whether the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied.”
VIOLETTE v. MCKEE  ·  2021-12-20  ·  D. Maine  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“[W]hen it appears that [a punitive damage claim] comprises the bulk of the amount in controversy and may have been colorably asserted or primarily for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, that claim should be given particularly close scrutiny.”
George v. Puerto Rico Wire Products, Inc.  ·  2021-08-10  ·  Virgin Islands  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“When both actual and punitive damages are recoverable, punitive damages are properly considered in determining whether the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied.”
Depu v. Oath Holdings, Inc.  ·  2021-03-22  ·  District of Columbia  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“[T]he law of trusts is different from the law of torts.”
VIOLETTE v. CLICK BANK  ·  2021-01-08  ·  D. Maine  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“[W]hen it appears that [a punitive damage claim] comprises the bulk of the amount in controversy and may have been colorably asserted solely or primarily for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, that claim should be given particularly close scrutiny.”
Louis Myers v. Geico Casualty Co  ·  2020-12-08  ·  Third Circuit  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“Here, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has not addressed this precise question, so we must predict how it would decide the issue were it confronted with the problem.”
SCIARRINO v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY  ·  2020-08-04  ·  E.D. Pennsylvania  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“When both actual and punitive damages are recoverable, punitive damages are properly considered in determining whether the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied.”
GRAHAM v. VALLEY FORGE MILITARY ACADEMY AND COLLEGE  ·  2019-11-27  ·  E.D. Pennsylvania  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“when it appears that [a claim for non-actual damages] comprises the bulk of the amount in controversy . . . that claim should be given particularly close scrutiny.”
Jason Brown v. Progressive Specialty Ins Co.  ·  2019-03-29  ·  Third Circuit  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“The person asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of 3 showing that the case is properly before the court at all stages of the litigation.”
Rex T. Morrison v. Allstate Indemnity Co.  ·  2000-09-26  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“It is axiomatic that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as such are under a continuing duty to satisfy themselves of their jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of any case.”
Skyers v. Baltimore  ·  1999-12-22  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
“when it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff was never entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount, the case must be dismissed.”
Nicholson v. Marine Corps West Federal Credit Union  ·  1997-01-28  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  pin 994 F.2d at 1039
"[M]ultiple persons’ claims cannot be combined to reach the minimum amount in controversy."