Miller v. Brown Shipbuilding Co.
165 F.2d 956
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided January 27, 1948·No. No. 12097·Published·Cited by 9 cases
Opinion
Jurisdiction of a federal district court is not presumed, and the complaint must, as against a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, allege facts showing jurisdiction. The complaint here does not with sufficient clearness show what the controversy is and that the court has jurisdiction over it. The judgment of dismissal for this cause is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Miller v. Brown Shipbuilding Co., 165 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1948).
165 F.2d 956 (Miller v. Brown Shipbuilding Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Morris v. United States Department of Justine
540 F. Supp. 898 (S.D. Texas, 1982)
Sekerez v. US REDUCTION COMPANY
344 N.E.2d 102 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1976)
Cooper v. County Board of Review of Grant County
276 N.E.2d 533 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1971)
Brown Brothers Equipment Co. v. State
266 F. Supp. 506 (W.D. Michigan, 1967)
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit
256 F.2d 334 (Third Circuit, 1958)
No. 12267
256 F.2d 334 (Third Circuit, 1958)
Underwood v. Maloney
256 F.2d 334 (Third Circuit, 1958)
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Amalgamated Ass'n of Street Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees
105 F. Supp. 537 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1952)