Risse v. Woodard

24 Citing cases

  1. Cadek v. Great Lakes Dragaway, Inc.

    58 F.3d 1209 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 63 times
    Finding that § 2254 petitions filed within one year of the AEDPA's effective date were timely

    The first question is whether punitive damages are recoverable as a matter of state law. If the answer is yes, the court has subject matter jurisdiction unless it is clear "beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiff would under no circumstances be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount." Risse v. Woodard, 491 F.2d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1974). Applying this analysis to the present case, the answer to the first question is that under Wisconsin law, punitive damages may be awarded for fraudulent misrepresentation.

  2. Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company v. Larson

    Cause No. 06-CV-074-WDS (S.D. Ill. May. 25, 2006)

    In its response, plaintiff argues that the case can be dismissed "if, and only if, it can be concluded beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiff would under no circumstances be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount." (Doc. 16, citing Risse v. Woodard, 491 F.2d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1974)). In attempts to show the Court that an award in excess of $75,000 would be possible in the underlying suit, plaintiff refers the Court to its attached exhibit, a demand letter in which the plaintiffs in the underlying suit offers to settle the matter in exchange for receipt of $1,000,000 from defendant Larson. Defendant Larson moves this Court to strike that exhibit from the record on the grounds that the Court should not look outside the complaint in making its decision on the motion to dismiss.

  3. Del Vecchio v. Conseco, Inc.

    230 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 139 times
    Holding that the court lacked jurisdiction because recovering the jurisdictional minimum would require a punitive damages award "bordering on the farcical"

    The first question is whether punitive damages are recoverable as a matter of state law. If the answer is yes, the court has subject matter jurisdiction unless it is clear "beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiff would under no circumstances be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount."Cadek v. Great Lakes Dragaway, Inc., 58 F.3d 1209, 1211-12 (7th Cir. 1995), quoting Risse v. Woodard, 491 F.2d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1974). Generally, we give plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt in these matters, but a complaint will be dismissed if it "appear[s] to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount."

  4. Anthony v. Security Pacific Financial Services

    75 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 159 times
    Holding that punitive damages would not satisfy the amount in controversy where the complaint failed to allege "aggravated or egregious" conduct such as to warrant punitive damages under Illinois law

    The first question is whether punitive damages are recoverable as a matter of state law. If the answer is yes, the court has subject matter jurisdiction unless it is clear `beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiff would under no circumstances be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount.'" Cadek, 58 F.3d at 1212 (quoting Risse v. Woodard, 491 F.2d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1974)). When a claim for punitive damages makes up the bulk of the amount in controversy, and may even have been colorably asserted solely to confer jurisdiction, we should scrutinize that claim closely.

  5. Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Copy Plus, Inc.

    939 F.2d 513 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 24 times
    Upholding jurisdiction because the record did not show that a verdict for the jurisdictional minimum would be set aside as excessive

    In determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000, "[i]t must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal." St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938); see also Risse v. Woodard, 491 F.2d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1974) (court must conclude "beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiff would under no circumstances be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount"). Application of the "legal certainty" test to the facts of this case leads us to conclude that the district court improperly dismissed Sharp's petition.

  6. Loss v. Blankenship

    673 F.2d 942 (7th Cir. 1982)   Cited 73 times
    Holding "that a complaint for interference with a collective bargaining agreement, against a non-party to that agreement, is not actionable under § 301 of the LMRA"

    "The basic criterion for determining whether the amount sought was not made in good faith is if it can be concluded beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiff would under no circumstances be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount." Risse v. Woodard, 491 F.2d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1974). Furthermore, "[w]hen the issue of jurisdictional amount is intertwined with the merits of the case, `courts should be careful not to decide the merits, under the guise of determining jurisdiction, without the ordinary incidents of a trial.'"

  7. Nanda v. Ford Motor Company

    509 F.2d 213 (7th Cir. 1974)   Cited 61 times
    Applying Illinois law

    The Pedrick rule is applicable in a diversity case. See, e. g., Risse v. Woodard, 491 F.2d 1170, 1171 (7th Cir. 1974). Plaintiff called two experts, whose combined testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to him, showed in substance that the fuel-filler neck of the 1967 Cortina tended to pull loose and be displaced into the trunk; that the fuel tank was "susceptible to distortion" because of its location in the frame; that the fuel tank, filler neck and cap were located in an extremely vulnerable position; and that these conditions created an unreasonable danger of fire in the event of collision.

  8. Mayberry v. Gilbert

    1:21-cv-03031-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Cadek v. Great Lakes Dragaway, Inc., 58 F.3d 1209, 1211-12 (7th Cir.1995), quoting Risse v. Woodard, 491 F.2d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir.1974). Indiana law limits punitive damages.

  9. Stephens v. Navient Sols. Inc.

    No. 14 C 1528 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Thus, the court must conduct a two-part inquiry: first, "whether punitive damages are recoverable as a matter of state law," Cadek v. Great Lakes Dragaway, Inc., 58 F.3d 1209, 1212 (7th Cir. 1995); and if so, the court "has subject matter jurisdiction unless it is clear 'beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiff would under no circumstances be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount.'" Id. (quoting Risse v. Woodard, 491 F.2d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1974)); see also Normand v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 193 F.3d 908, 910-11 (7th Cir. 1999). The allegations in the complaint must be sufficient to state a claim for punitive damages under Illinois law, Anthony v. Sec. Pac. Fin. Servs., Inc., 75 F.3d 311, 316-17 (7th Cir. 1996), however, applying federal pleading standards, Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., Inc., 536 F.3d 663, 671-72 (7th Cir. 2008).

  10. Strategic Lending Solutions LLC v. United Def. Grp. LLP

    No. 13-cv-08232 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    The first question is whether punitive damages are recoverable as a matter of state law. If the answer is yes, the court has subject matter jurisdiction unless it is clear "beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiff would under no circumstances be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount."Cadek v. Great Lakes Dragway, Inc., 58 F.3d 1209, 1211-12 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting Risse v. Woodard, 491 F.2d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1974)). Plaintiffs satisfy both parts of the two-step inquiry. First, Illinois common law provides for the recovery of punitive damages for fraud claims.