TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wagner v. Flora

William Wagner, Jack A. Tretheway, and Argus Construction Company, a Corporation v. Walter W. Flora, Mildred L. Flora, Flora Construction Company, a Corporation, and Naomi Becker

Wagner v. Flora, 290 F.2d 508 (10th Cir. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 18, 1961
Docket
No. 6554
Citations
290 F.2d 5081961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4789

Opinion

290 F.2d 508

William WAGNER, Jack A. Tretheway, and Argus Construction Company, a corporation, Appellants, v. Walter W. FLORA, Mildred L. Flora, Flora Construction Company, a corporation, and Naomi Becker, Appellees.

No. 6554.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

April 18, 1961.

Anthony V. Zarlengo, Denver, Colo. (Herbert A. Shatz, Denver, Colo., was with him on the brief), for appellants.

Robert A. Burgess, Casper, Wyo. (William F. Schoeberlein, Denver, Colo., was with him on the brief), for appellees.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, PICKETT, Circuit Judge, and KERR, District judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

This appeal is from an order of the District Court dismissing plaintiff-appellants' complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction.

2

The action was brought in the Colorado District Court, alleging both diversity of citizenship and a federal question.

3

It is patently obvious that there is no diversity jurisdiction. The two individual plaintiffs are citizens of Colorado, as are two of the individual defendants. In addition, all parties are apparently indispensable and there is no possibility of realignment. Thus the case falls within the rule which denies diversity jurisdiction when a plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as one of the defendants. See 3 Moore's Federal Practice, 18.07;28 U.S.C. 1332.

4

The plaintiffs further contend that defendants have conspired to deprive them of contractual benefits in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1343, thereby creating a federal question. But that statute contemplates violations of protected civil rights, and does not extend federal jurisdiction to suits for damages growing out of alleged breach of contract. See Walker v. Bank of America, 9 Cir., 268 F.2d 16 .

5

The order of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1965: 119652026peak 1965 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Knoll v. Knoll350 F.2d 407 (10th Cir. 1965)

Most recent

  1. Knoll v. Knoll350 F.2d 407 (10th Cir. 1965)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Walker v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n, & Transamerica Corp., 268 F.2d 16 (9th Cir. 1959) 44

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list