Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
230 F.3d 868 (2000)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Shirley K. Rogers (plaintiff) suffered injuries after she tripped and fell on a wooden pallet in a Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) (defendant) store in Memphis, Tennessee. In 1997 Rogers filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that Wal-Mart’s employees had acted negligently by leaving the pallet in the store’s shopping area. Rogers sought damages of $950,000. Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court on diversity-jurisdiction grounds, as Wal-Mart and Rogers were citizens of different states and the lawsuit sought damages over the amount-in-controversy requirement of $75,000. In her answers to interrogatories, Rogers estimated that her damages were around $450,000. In 1998 the parties agreed to dismiss the case. In 1999 Rogers filed a second lawsuit against Wal-Mart in state court, this time seeking damages not exceeding $75,000. Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court, citing Rogers’s answer to the interrogatory from the first case in which she estimated her damages were $450,000. Rogers filed a motion to remand the case to state court. Along with her motion, Rogers filed an affidavit stating that she would not seek damages beyond $75,000 and attached a stipulation agreeing that her damages did not exceed $75,000. The federal district court denied Rogers’s motion to remand the case. Rogers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dowd, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.