Amount in controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amount in controversy (sometimes called jurisdictional amount) is a term used in United States civil procedure to denote a requirement that persons seeking to bring a lawsuit in a particular court must be suing for a certain minimum amount before that court may hear the case.
Contents |
[edit] In federal courts
[edit] Diversity jurisdiction
In United States federal courts, the term currently only applies to cases brought under diversity jurisdiction, meaning that the court is able to hear the case only because it is between citizens of different states. In such cases, the U.S. Congress has decreed in Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) that the court may hear such suits only where "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000." This amount representes a significant increase from earlier years.
Congress first established the amount in controversy requirement when it created diversity jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1789, pursuant to its powers under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. In that Act, the amount was $500. It was raised to $2,000 in 1887; to $3,000 in 1911; to $10,000 in 1958; to $50,000 in 1988; and finally to the current $75,000 in 1996.
[edit] Federal question jurisdiction
Congress did not create a consistent federal question jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear any case alleging a violation of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, until 1875. At that time, such cases had the same amount in controversy requirement as the diversity cases. Congress eliminated this requirement in actions against the United States in 1976, and in all federal question cases in 1980.
[edit] Aggregation of claims
Where a single plaintiff has multiple unrelated claims against a single defendant, that plaintiff can aggregate those claims - that is, add the amounts together - to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. In cases involving more than one defendant, a plaintiff may aggregate the amount claimed against multiple defendants “only if the defendants are jointly liable.” Middle Tennessee News Co., Inc. v. Charnel of Cincinnati, Inc., 250 F.3d 1077, 1081 (7th Cir. 2001). However, “if the defendants are severally liable, plaintiff must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement against each individual defendant.” The recent 5-4 decision in Exxon v. Allapattah held that a federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over claims of other plaintiffs who do not meet the jurisdictional amount for a diversity action, when at least one plaintiff in the action does satisfy the jurisdictional amount.
[edit] In state courts
Each state has the power to set its own amount in controversy requirements for its own courts, but every state must offer some outlet for citizens to sue for violations of their rights, even if they are seeking no money.
