Scott v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 243 (1920). · Go Syfert
Search
Scott v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 243 (1920). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
129 citation events across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Griffin v. Dana Point Condominium Ass'n (ilnd, 1991-06-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1923 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1923 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Griffin v. Dana Point Condominium Ass'n
N.D. Ill. · 1991 · confidence medium
The rule has been applied to forbid aggregation of claims where none of the claimants satisfies the jurisdictional amount, as was the case in Scott v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 243, 244 [ 40 S.Ct. 503, 503 , 64 L.Ed. 883 ] (1920), for example, where the Court stated the rule to be that “the amount in controversy must equal the jurisdictional sum as to each complainant.” It also requires dismissal of those litigants whose claims do not satisfy the jurisdictional amount, even though other litigants assert claims sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal court.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Zahn v. International Paper Co. (4×)
SCOTUS · 1973 · confidence medium
A. Whitehead & Co., 222 U. S. 39, 40-41 (1911): "When two or more plaintiffs, having separate and distinct demands, unite for convenience and economy in a single suit, it is essential that the demand of each be of the requisite jurisdictional amount; but when several plaintiffs unite to enforce a single title or right, in which they have a common and undivided interest, it is enough if their interests collectively equal the jurisdictional amount." This distinction and rule that multiple plaintiffs with separate and distinct claims must each satisfy the jurisdictional-amount requirement for sui…
discussed Cited "see" Department of Labor & Industries v. Cook (2×)
Wash. · 1954 · signal: see · confidence high
See Scott v. Frazier, 258 Fed. 669 , reversed on other grounds 253 U. S. 243 , 64 L.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Stromberg Metal Works, Inc., and Comfort Control, Inc. v. Press Mechanical, Inc. (3×)
7th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Scott v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 243 , 40 S.Ct. 503 , 64 L.Ed. 883 (1920).
examined Cited "see, e.g." ca3 1981 (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Scott v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 243, 244 , 40 S.Ct. 503 , 64 L.Ed. 883 (1920), for federal question jurisdiction.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Glover v. Johns-Manville Co. (3×)
4th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Scott v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 243, 244 , 40 S.Ct. 503 , 64 L.Ed. 883 (1920), for federal question jurisdiction.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Stevenson v. City of Bluefield (3×)
S.D.W. Va · 1941 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Scott et al., v. Frazier et ah, 253 U.S. 243 , 40 S.Ct. 503 , 64 L.Ed. 883 ; Georgia Power Company v. Hudson, 4 Cir., 49 F.2d 66 , 75 A. L.R. 1439; Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U.S. 621 , 36 S.Ct. 217 , 60 L.Ed. 469 ; Wheless v. St.
Scott Et Al.
v.
Frazier Et Al.
508.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1920.
253 U.S. 243
Mr. N. V. Young, Mr. Tracy R. Bangs and Mr. C. J. Murphy for appellants., Mr. S. L. Nuchols and Mr. W. S. Lauder, with whom Mr. William L'anger, Attorney General of the State of North Dakota, was on. the brief, for appellees., Mr. Frederic A. Pike, with whom Mr. William Lemke was on the brief, for Frazier, Governor, Hagan, Commissioner of Agriculture and Labor, and the Industrial Commission of North Dakota, appellees.
Day.
Cited by 47 opinions  |  Published

[*244] Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by

Mr. Justice Day.

This suit so far as the merits are concerned is like No. 811, just decided, ante, 233. It was brought in the District Court of the United States for the district of North Dakota to enjoin the payment of public funds in the State Treasury and the issuing of state, bonds under the' constitution and laws of North Dakota. We have sufficiently stated the nature of this constitution ánd the laws involved in the opinion in No. 811.

The jurisdiction was invoked because of alleged violátion of rights under the- Fourteenth Amendment. The complainants were taxpayers of North Dakota who alleged that suit was brought on behalf of themselves and all other taxpayers of the State. There was no diversity of citizenship and jurisdiction was rested solely upon the alleged violation of constitutional rights. The District Court rendered a decree dismissing the bill on the merits, the judge stating that he was of opinion that there was no jurisdiction and directing the dismissal on the merits to prevent delay and to permit the suit being brought here by a single appeal.

There is no allegation that the loss or injury to any complainant amounts to the sum of $3,000. It is well settled that in such cases as this the amount in controversy must equal the jurisdictional sum as to each complainant. Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379; Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U. S. 621.

The'District Court was right in its conclusion that there was no jurisdiction. The decree is reversed and the' cause remanded to the District Court with, directions to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction.

So ordered.