Rogers v. Hennepin County

Rogers v. Hennepin Cnty., 239 U.S. 621 (1916)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: January 10, 1916
Docket: No. 411
Judges: McReynolds
Citations: 239 U.S. 62136 S. Ct. 21760 L. Ed. 4691916 U.S. LEXIS 1911

Syllabus

In an action brought by a number of complainants to restrain the collection of a tax separately assessed against each for under forty dollars, the aggregate exceeding the jurisdictional amount, held that the District Court did not have jurisdiction, as the amount as to each complainant was the sum charged against him, and demands against all could not be aggregated in order to confer jurisdiction. Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379.

Summary

APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. The facts, which involve the method of determining the amount in controversy in order to give jurisdiction to the District Court, are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — McReynolds

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.

Three complainants, claiming to represent themselves and others like situated (numbering altogether 550), instituted this proceeding in equity against Hennepin County, Minnesota, and certain of its officers, in the District Court of the United States, seeking an injunction to prevent collection of a tax under forty dollars assessed against each of them, for the year 1913, on account of his membership in the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce.

*622 Defendants challenged the court’s power to entertain the cause upon the ground that the amount in controversy as to each complainant is the sum charged against him and demands against all cannot be aggregated in order to confer jurisdiction. The District Court sustained this objection upon authority of Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379 , and dismissed the bill. It committed no error in so doing, and its judgment is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 35 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

William M. Schreiber v. Richard G. Lugar, as Mayor of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis, Indiana518 F.2d 1099 (7th Cir. 1975)
Elliott v. Empire Natural Gas Co.4 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1925)
Potrero Hill Community Action Committee, Etc. v. The Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco410 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1969)
Knowles v. War Damage Corporation171 F.2d 15 (D.C. Cir. 1948)
William J. Troup v. Harold F. McCart238 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1957)
Fuller v. Volk351 F.2d 323 (3d Cir. 1965)

Most recent

William M. Schreiber v. Richard G. Lugar, as Mayor of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis, Indiana518 F.2d 1099 (7th Cir. 1975)
Potrero Hill Community Action Committee, Etc. v. The Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco410 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1969)
Fuller v. Volk351 F.2d 323 (3d Cir. 1965)
William J. Troup v. Harold F. McCart238 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1957)
Aetna Insurance v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad127 F. Supp. 895 (D. Kan. 1955)
Knowles v. War Damage Corporation171 F.2d 15 (D.C. Cir. 1948)

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

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U.S. 379 (1901)	63

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list