28 U.S.C. § 2108
Proof of amount in controversy
Where the power of any court of appeals to review a case depends upon the amount or value in controversy, such amount or value, if not otherwise satisfactorily disclosed upon the record, may be shown and ascertained by the oath of a party to the case or by other competent evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1959–2019 · leading case: Loubna Naji v. Andrew Lincoln
Loubna Naji v. Andrew Lincoln (2016)
“” Agreement between the parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction, however.”
Frazier v. Pioneer Americas LLC (2006)
“1995) (discussing amount in controversy requirement for cases removed from Louisiana state courts, where the procedural rules prohibit assertion of amount of damages); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2108 ("Where the power of any court of appeals to review a case depends upon the amount of…”
In Re Sawyer (1959)
“" 28 U. S. C. § 2108 . [*] See Canon 20 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association.”
Norton Sarnoff and Carl Fletcher, and v. American Home Products Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Appellee (1986)
“28 U.S.C. § 2108 . If the problem involves greater factual uncertainty, we can remand the case to give the parties a chance to introduce evidence in the district court and obtain a jurisdictional finding by the district judge.”
Lee A. Turzillo v. P & Z Mergentime, Lee A. Turzillo v. P & Z Mergentime (1976)
“In some cases a matter like this is best remanded to the District Court, so that it can exercise its judgment on the facts in the light of its exposure over days of trial, but in the present case the foregoing conclusion is so clear that we think that an initial appellate…”
Charles W. Ramsey v. United States of America (1972)
“While we would not focus on procedural details in a matter where the pertinent facts are essentially uncontested, that is not how this case shapes up as of present.”
Imperium Insurance Company v. Shelton & Associates (2019)
“; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2108 (allowing consideration of “other competent evidence” when deciding the amount in controversy).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.