The Federal District Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the state courts over any case involving diversity of citizenship where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The statement presents a question about federal and state court jurisdictions in diversity cases. 
Option analysis:
Option True: The core idea is that federal district courts have original jurisdiction concurrent with state courts in civil actions where there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. This aligns with 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000. The term 'concurrent jurisdiction' means either a plaintiff may file in federal court or state court, and in many situations a defendant may remove a case filed in state court to federal court if the requirements are met. Therefore, stating that there is concurrent jurisdiction for diversity cases meeting the monetary threshold is correct, recognizing that removal and the specifics of complete diversity still apply in practice.
Option False: If one looks for potential caveats, this statement could be misleading if interpreted too broadly. For instance, diversity jurisdiction does not apply to cases that do not meet the complete diversity requirement, or to cases where the amount in controversy is exactly $75,000 (the limit is “exceeds $75,000,” not “equals or exceeds”); also, there are listed exceptions and exclusions (such as certain domestic relations or probate matters) where federal jurisdiction is not available despite diversity. Additionally, many cases with a federal question or in certain categories may not rely on diversity jurisdiction even though the amount meets the threshold. These nuances mean the statement could be incorrect if read as universally applicable without recognizing the conditions (complete diversity, amount > $75,000, and the usual jurisdictional exclusions).
Structure and nuance: In summary, the claim is generally true under the standard rule for diversity jurisdiction, but it relies on meeting the specific conditions (complete diversity and amount in controversy exceeding $75,000) and on recognizing exceptions and removal dynamics. The false option would be correct only if one asserts that diversity jurisdiction never exists concurrently with state courts or ignores the monetary threshold or the need for complete diversity, which would be inaccurate.

The Federal District Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the state courts over any case involving diversity of citizenship where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

The Federal District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over any case involving diversity of citizenship.

Civil cases involving the citizens of more than one state and in which more than $75,000 is at stake

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler