Tonya Kay Autry and Animal Haven, Inc. v. Paul M. Crumpler

Fourth Circuit

Tonya Kay Autry and Animal Haven, Inc. v. Paul M. Crumpler

377 F.2d 547, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6546

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 1967

Docket11054_1

StatusPublished

This text of 377 F.2d 547 (Tonya Kay Autry and Animal Haven, Inc. v. Paul M. Crumpler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tonya Kay Autry and Animal Haven, Inc. v. Paul M. Crumpler, 377 F.2d 547, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6546 (4th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction is affirmed.

There is no diversity of citizenship. The defendants are citizens of North Carolina. The corporate plaintiff is organized under the laws of that state and has its only place of business, there. The individual plaintiff resides in North Carolina, and the record abundantly supports the finding that she is a citizen of that state, not of Florida.

The action, involving the treatment of animals and the enforcement of the relevant North Carolina statutes in all of its multitudinous claims, does not arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

If either of the plaintiffs has any justiciable claim, it is not cognizable in the federal courts.

Motions to correct and amplify the record and to require the Clerk of the District Court to provide legal assistance-, to the plaintiffs are denied.

Affirmed.

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