Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
DENARO v. MARYLAND BAKING CO., 1929 — 35 F.2d 351 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
DENARO v. MARYLAND BAKING CO.
35 F.2d 351·United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·1929
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
DENARO v. MARYLAND BAKING CO.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
October 25, 1929.
No. 2370.
Jesse A. Holton, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.
Joseph B. Abrams, of Boston, Mass., for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, ANDERSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The parties to this suit in equity are citizens and residents of different states. In such a situation, to confer jurisdiction on the court, the bill should have alleged, in addition to the facts showing diversity of citizenship, that the matter in controversy exceeded the amount or value of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, or contained allegations disclosing that a substantial federal question was involved. NotwitR standing the bill failed to contain the necessary jurisdictional allegations, the District Court took jurisdiction and entered a decree granting a temporary injunction. Because of this error, the decree must be vacated, and the ease remanded to the District Court, where the bill should be properly amended or dismissed.
The decree of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion, with costs to the appellant in this court.