From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Flowers
United States Supreme Court
330 U.S. 464, 67 S. Ct. 798, 91 L. Ed. 1024 (1947)
Edward E. Flowers was employed by J. A. Jones Construction Company (Jones) (defendant), a North Carolina corporation. Jones was insured by Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (Aetna) (defendant), a Connecticut corporation. Edward died as a result of a workplace accident. His widow, Fannie M. Flowers (plaintiff), a Tennessee citizen, filed a lawsuit against Jones and Aetna in state court under Tennessee’s workers’-compensation law, seeking burial expenses and benefits up to $5,000 for herself and her two minor children. Under Tennessee law, workers’-compensation benefits could be paid by employers in installments. Benefits would cease to be available to a widow if she died or remarried before the full benefits were paid out, and minor children would stop receiving benefits when they turned 18. Jones and Aetna removed the case to federal district court on diversity-jurisdiction grounds, asserting that there was diversity of citizenship between the parties and the damages Fannie sought exceeded the $3,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. Fannie filed a motion to remand the case to state court. Jones and Aetna filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that Fannie filed the case in an improper venue. The district court dismissed the case for lack of lack of jurisdiction based on improper venue and did not reach the question of diversity jurisdiction. The court of appeals reversed the district court and remanded the case to state court. The court of appeals reasoned that due to the installment payments and conditions on the payment of benefits, the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was not satisfied because Fannie possibly would receive less than $3,000 in benefits before the benefits terminated. The court of appeals did not consider the venue question. Aetna and Jones appealed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was met.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Douglas, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.