Dargon Suther v. City of Midfield, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Dargon Suther v. City of Midfield, Inc.

358 F.2d 740, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6544

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 1966

Docket22778_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 358 F.2d 740 (Dargon Suther v. City of Midfield, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dargon Suther v. City of Midfield, Inc., 358 F.2d 740, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6544 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment dismissing the complaint is AFFIRMED, but on the ground that the complaint shows on its face the want of subject matter jurisdiction, that is to say, it does not adequately allege the existence of the amount in controversy exceeding $10,000. As stated in Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 54 S.Ct. 700, 78 L.Ed. 1248,

“The tax, payment of which is demanded or resisted, is the matter in controversy, since payment of it would avoid the penalty and end the dispute. * * * Whether and in what manner the penalty for nonpayment may be enforced in the event the tax is valid are but collateral and incidental to the determination whether payment may be exacted. Only when the suit is brought to restrain imposition of a penalty already accrued by reason of failure to comply with the statute or order assailed can the penalty be included as any part of the matter in controversy.”

It cannot realistically be said here that the enforcement of a regulatory statute requiring the appellant to cut weeds on his lot threatens plaintiff’s property to such an extent that the difference between its value as regulated and unreg *741 ulated meets the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy. See McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135. See also Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583, 589, 59 S.Ct. 744, 83 L.Ed. 1001.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The judgment dismissing the complaint is AFFIRMED, but on the ground that the complaint shows on its face the want of subject matter jurisdiction, that is to say, it does not adequately allege the existence of the amount in controversy exceeding $10,000. As stated in Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 54 S.Ct. 700, 78 L.Ed. 1248,

“The tax, payment of which is demanded or resisted, is the matter in controversy, since payment of it would avoid the penalty and end the dispute. * * * Whether and in what manner the penalty for nonpayment may be enforced in the event the tax is valid are but collateral and incidental to the determination whether payment may be exacted. Only when the suit is brought to restrain imposition of a penalty already accrued by reason of failure to comply with the statute or order assailed can the penalty be included as any part of the matter in controversy.”

It cannot realistically be said here that the enforcement of a regulatory statute requiring the appellant to cut weeds on his lot threatens plaintiff’s property to such an extent that the difference between its value as regulated and unreg *741 ulated meets the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy. See McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135. See also Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583, 589, 59 S.Ct. 744, 83 L.Ed. 1001.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 F.2d 740, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dargon-suther-v-city-of-midfield-inc-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack