Summary
recognizing that a finding of amount in controversy can be based on future damages
Summary of this case from Daniels v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.Opinion
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 919.
Decided June 15, 1964.
224 F. Supp. 546, affirmed.
Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, E. G. Funke, Assistant Attorney General and Felice R. Cutter and Warren H. Deering, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellants.
George D. Byfield for appellees.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U.S. 324.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., supra.