Hinton v. Roberts

Second Circuit

Hinton v. Roberts

243 F.2d 169

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1957

DocketNo. 260, Docket 24363

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 F.2d 169 (Hinton v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hinton v. Roberts, 243 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the complaint, jurisdiction is ostensibly laid on federal questions allegedly arising under the Constitution and the federal civil rights acts, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 et seq.; 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 241, 242, and under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1705. However, the facts alleged show only controversy as to the title and the right to possession of New York real estate and appurtenances allegedly owned by a church of which the plaintiff is the alleged minister and as to the legality of acts of the defendants in evicting the plaintiff therefrom. Diversity of citizenship was not alleged. Thus the real controversy was essentially local. The assertion that the controversy was one arising under the [170]*170laws of the United States is clearly an artificial attempt to create federal jurisdiction.

The action was rightly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the complaint, jurisdiction is ostensibly laid on federal questions allegedly arising under the Constitution and the federal civil rights acts, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 et seq.; 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 241, 242, and under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1705. However, the facts alleged show only controversy as to the title and the right to possession of New York real estate and appurtenances allegedly owned by a church of which the plaintiff is the alleged minister and as to the legality of acts of the defendants in evicting the plaintiff therefrom. Diversity of citizenship was not alleged. Thus the real controversy was essentially local. The assertion that the controversy was one arising under the [170]*170laws of the United States is clearly an artificial attempt to create federal jurisdiction.

The action was rightly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 F.2d 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinton-v-roberts-ca2-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack