Pinel v. Pinel
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 594, 36 S. Ct. 416, 60 L. Ed. 817 (1916)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Charles T. Pinel (Mr. Pinel) had eight children. When Mr. Pinel died, his will did not include three of his children—Herman Pinel, Sarah Slyfield, and Charles W. Pinel. Herman and Sarah (plaintiffs) believed that they were unintentionally excluded from Mr. Pinel’s estate. Herman sought one-eighth of the estate, which he estimated was worth $1,500, and Sarah sought two-eighths of the estate—her share and her brother Charles’s share, because Charles had assigned his interest to her—which she estimated was worth $3,000. Herman and Sarah filed a lawsuit against their siblings who were included in the will (defendants) in federal district court. Herman and Sarah believed that the court had diversity jurisdiction over the case because their combined damages were $4,500, which exceeded the $3,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. The district court held that Herman and Sarah could not combine their damages to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement because they were each seeking a share of Mr. Pinel’s estate independently of the other’s claim rather than seeking to enforce a single right with a common claim. As neither Herman nor Sarah was seeking an amount that exceeded $3,000, the district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pitney, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
