McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
- Decided
- May 18, 1936
- Docket
- Nos. 709, 710
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,144 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds (not yet verified) · Star Hyundai, LLC v. Genesis Motor America LLC
What later courts said
- holding that the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court must in his pleading allege the facts essential to establish jurisdiction — U.S. ex rel. Aflatooni v. Kitsap Physicians Services (1999)
- holding that “[i]f [plaintiffs] allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof’ — Brown v. United States (2006)
- holding that the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court must in his pleading allege the facts essential to establish jurisdiction — United States ex rel. Aflatooni v. Kitsap Physicians Services (1998)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Me. Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Indiana, brought this suit to restrain the enforcement of Chapter 231 of the Acts of 1935 of the General Assembly of Indiana. That Act provides for the regulation of the business of purchasing contracts arising out of retail installment sales, including provisions for licenses, for classifications of contracts, and for fixing maximum “finance charges.” The validity of the Act was challenged as depriving respondent of its property without due process of law and denying it the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. An interlocutory injunction was sought and, upon hearing by three judges (28 U. S. C. 380), a final decree was entered, upon findings of facts and conclusions of law, granting a permanent injunction. No opinion was rendered. The case comes here by direct appeal.
The question arises whether the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, so as to give the District Court jurisdiction. Jud. Code, § 24 (1), 28 U. S. C. 41 (1). The complaint' alleged that the requisite amount was involved and this [*180] allegation was denied by the answer. On the argument in this Court, leave was given to file an additional brief upon the question of jurisdiction and respondent has submitted its brief accordingly.
Statutes cited
- 28 U.S.C. § 380
- 28 U.S.C. § 41
- 28 U.S.C. § 80
- 28 U.S.C. § 724
- 28 U.S.C. § 118
Cite this
McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.