U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1926

Pine v. East Bay Municipal Utility Dist.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided November 29, 1926 · Rudkin

16 F.2d 274; 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3834 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

D. Hadsell, Joe G. Sweet, and E. A. In-galls, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant., T. P. Wittsehen, of Oakland, Cal. (Mark-ell C. Baer and Geo. W. Lupton, Jr., both of Oakland, Cal'., of counsel), for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Kurn v. Beasley (8th Cir. 1940)
State Life Ins. v. Wichita County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2 (District Court, N.D. Texas 1937)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This was a suit by a taxpayer to restrain the East Bay *275municipal utility district, a municipal utility district organized under the laws of the state of California, from entering into certain contracts and from incurring certain obligations. The jurisdiction of the court below was invoked upon the ground that the matter in controversy exceeded, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,-000, and arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

If the test of jurisdiction in this class of cases is the amount of the obligations incurred, or damages sustained, by the public corporation, the court below had jurisdiction, provided the matter in controversy arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States; but, if the test of jurisdiction is the loss to the individual taxpayer, or the amount of taxes he may be required to pay, the court was without jurisdiction, because it was conceded on the argument that the aggregate amount of all taxes that may be imposed upon the property of the plaintiff will be far less than the jurisdictional amount. That the latter is the true test is well settled by the authorities. Colvin v. Jacksonville, 158 U. S. 456, 15 S. Ct. 866, 39 L. Ed. 1053; Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379, 21 S. Ct. 402, 45 L. Ed. 583; Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U. S. 621, 36 S. Ct. 217, 60 L. Ed. 469; Scott v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 243, 40 S. Ct. 503, 24 L. Ed. 883.

The bill of complaint was dismissed by the court below, and properly so, but the dismissal was upon the merits. The decree is therefore reversed, with directions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Scott v. Erazier, supra.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.