Texas Acorn v. Texas Area 5 Health Systems Agency, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Texas Acorn v. Texas Area 5 Health Systems Agency, Inc.

565 F.2d 908

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 6, 1978

DocketNo. 77-1717

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 565 F.2d 908 (Texas Acorn v. Texas Area 5 Health Systems Agency, 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

Texas Acorn v. Texas Area 5 Health Systems Agency, Inc., 565 F.2d 908 (5th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion September 23, 1977, 5 Cir., 1977, 559 F.2d 1019).

Before THORNBERRY, AINSWORTH and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In response to appellees’ petition, we write briefly to clarify two points. First, as we stated in our initial opinion, “[t]he amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) removes the amount-in-controversy requirement as to the federal defendant but it has no effect on the HSA.” 559 F.2d at 1023. This is so whether appellees cast their argument in terms of pendent jurisdiction or in terms of the legislative history of the amendment to § 1331(a). Second, we wish to make clear that on remand the appellees have the opportunity to demonstrate that the harm to the individual appellees exceeded the jurisdictional amount.

In all other respects, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby DENIED.

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion September 23, 1977, 5 Cir., 1977, 559 F.2d 1019).

Before THORNBERRY, AINSWORTH and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In response to appellees’ petition, we write briefly to clarify two points. First, as we stated in our initial opinion, “[t]he amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) removes the amount-in-controversy requirement as to the federal defendant but it has no effect on the HSA.” 559 F.2d at 1023. This is so whether appellees cast their argument in terms of pendent jurisdiction or in terms of the legislative history of the amendment to § 1331(a). Second, we wish to make clear that on remand the appellees have the opportunity to demonstrate that the harm to the individual appellees exceeded the jurisdictional amount.

In all other respects, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 F.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-acorn-v-texas-area-5-health-systems-agency-inc-ca5-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack