Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Nemec v. Morley, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appellants' diversity action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court found that the appellants failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000, which is required to establish diversity jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-04-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-2428

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appellants' diversity action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court found that the appellants failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000, which is required to establish diversity jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views2 pages

    Nemec v. Morley, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appellants' diversity action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court found that the appellants failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000, which is required to establish diversity jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-2428

    HARRY G. NEMEC; ELIZABETH H. NEMEC,


    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    JESSE MORLEY, JR., Salesman #13477, Lowe's
    Home Center, Incorporated; JAMES REIKERT,
    Salesman #44306, Lowe's Home Center, Incorporated; JOHN ACHENG, Manager, Lowe's Corporate
    Headquarters; GLENN A. WILSON, Technical Services, Hoover Wood Products; JOSEPH DOZIER,
    Vice President, Hoover Wood Products; ALLEN
    HORNE, Champion International Corporation,
    Forest Products; GARY BROUGHTON, Champion International Corporation, Forest Products; GARY
    YOUNG, Champion International Corporation,
    Forest Products; SHERI ELDRIDGE, Champion International Corporation, Forest Products; ALAN
    JONES, Champion International Corporation,
    Forest Products,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-95-407-2)
    Submitted:

    April 15, 1996

    Decided:

    April 22, 1996

    Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Harry G. Nemec, Elizabeth H. Nemec, Appellants Pro Se. Colleen
    Treacy Dickerson, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, Norfolk, Virginia; Heather Ann Mullen, WILLIAMS, KELLY & GREER, Norfolk, Virginia;
    Thomas Brian Kelly, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, MCCAMMON, OSTHIMER & TATUM,
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants appeal from the district court's order dismissing
    their diversity action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
    after finding that they failed to establish that the amount in
    controversy exceeded $50,000. 28 U.S.C. 1332 (1988). We have
    reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no
    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
    district court. Nemec v. Morley, No. CA-95-407-2 (E.D. Va. June 20,
    1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like