Knoll v. Knoll

350 F.2d 407, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4606
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedAugust 23, 1965
DocketNo. 8140
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 350 F.2d 407 (Knoll v. Knoll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Knoll v. Knoll, 350 F.2d 407, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4606 (10th Cir. 1965).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants file'd this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging, in substance, that they lost their rights of inheritance in their parents’ farm in Kansas as a result of the fraud of the defendants. Upon timely motion, the trial court dismissed the action for lack of the requisite diversity of citizenship. The jurisdictional allegation of the complaint states that one of the plaintiffs is a citizen of the District of Columbia, and the other a citizen of the State of Illinois. It also recites that while some of the defendants are citizens of Kansas, other defendants are citizens of the State of Illinois.1 It is obvious there is no diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants who are citizens of Illinois. It has long been held that diversity means “total diversity.” That is, all the parties on one side must have [408]*408citizenship diverse to those on the other side. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 7 U.S. 267, 2 L.Ed. 435; Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 60 S.Ct. 44, 84 L.Ed. 85, rehearing denied 309 U.S. 693, 60 S.Ct. 464, 84 L.Ed. 1034; Wagner v. Flora, 10 Cir., 290 F.2d 508; 28 U.S.C. § 1332; 1 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 0.60 [8.-4, pp. 644-645; Wright, Federal Courts, § 24, pp. 71-72.

We are also in agreement with the trial court’s finding that all the parties are indispensable to the lawsuit, and that none could be dropped or realigned.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Asselin v. Shawnee Mission Medical Center, Inc.
894 F. Supp. 1479 (D. Kansas, 1995)
Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Tuco, Inc.
156 F.R.D. 665 (D. Wyoming, 1994)
Merrigan v. Affiliated Bankshares of Colorado, Inc.
775 F. Supp. 1408 (D. Colorado, 1991)
Harris v. Illinois-California Express, Inc.
687 F.2d 1361 (Tenth Circuit, 1982)
Grimandi v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
512 F. Supp. 764 (D. Kansas, 1981)
Elders v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware
289 F. Supp. 630 (D. Minnesota, 1968)
Oppenheim v. Sterling
368 F.2d 516 (Tenth Circuit, 1966)
Knoll v. Knoll
350 F.2d 407 (Tenth Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
350 F.2d 407, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knoll-v-knoll-ca10-1965.