Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Aggregation of Jurisdictional Amount

Read a random definition: ultimate issue

A quick definition of Aggregation of Jurisdictional Amount:

Aggregation of Jurisdictional Amount: When someone wants to sue another person or company, they need to make sure the amount of money they are asking for is enough to meet the court's requirement. This requirement is currently $75,000. If someone has multiple claims against the same person, they can add up the money they are asking for to meet the requirement. But if they have different reasons for each claim, they can't add them together. If two or more people have the same problem with the same person or company, they can add up their claims to meet the requirement.

A more thorough explanation:

Aggregation of jurisdictional amount refers to the practice of combining multiple claims to meet the minimum amount required to file a lawsuit in a particular court. The current amount in controversy requirement is $75,000.

For example, if a person has two claims against the same party, they can combine the amount of both claims to meet the jurisdictional amount. However, if a person has alternative theories of recovery for the same claim, they cannot use them to increase the amount in controversy. For instance, if a person's car was damaged in an accident, they cannot claim both failure to stop at a stop sign and texting while driving to increase the amount of compensation they can receive. The maximum amount they can receive is the value of their car.

Aggregation between the claims of two or more separate people is allowed when the controversy concerns a common and undivided interest. For example, if two people jointly own a property and have a dispute over it, they can combine their claims to meet the jurisdictional amount.

These examples illustrate how aggregation of jurisdictional amount works and the exceptions that apply to it. It is important to note that this practice is generally not permitted, and parties should consult with a lawyer to determine the best course of action.

aggravating factor | AGI

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
legallybrunettelily
18:43
all this loyola chicago movement and none for me.
legallybrunettelily
18:58
why do they hate me
18:58
@windyMagician: why do you care about them?
18:58
@legallybrunettelily: you are too hot
18:59
Law school rankings are inversely correlated with attractiveness
@DigiFartHoe: they prayed on my downfall and lost and it is funny
MrThickRopes
19:15
Fo pm gon be a movie tmrw
19:19
@windyMagician: so?
19:20
Like why waste the bandwidth lmfao
why did they waste their bandwith hating on me
kinda like what you're doing rn
19:24
LOL nvm be yourself bro
19:41
@DigiFartHoe: Hows hunk today?
19:51
hey do y'all know whether davis status checker changes to decision rendered once a decision is rendered?
chat am i cooked. I have not really hear back from anywhere :( only two schools that were well within my reach and got rejected
MrThickRopes
20:01
bruhhhh dobby be emailing me
20:07
whats the +/- on LSAT medians after this cycle
20:09
+5
20:09
@NemoPropheta: Not sure but here is the most recent data, comparing 2023/2024, 25th/50th/75th percentiles at each school, with a change. Penn had +5 75th and OKC had -2
20:10
@JD-Dance: according to this spreadsheet i found, yes, and they will email you with whatever the result is
20:10
also three little lines is a filter, u can filter the numbers using it in row 2
20:11
Readme tab at botton
20:12
sry whoever made spreadsheet is a rock brain fr
20:12
<3
I made a speadsheet once
MrThickRopes
23:08
Fo pm gon go crazzzzy tmrw
MrThickRopes
23:12
We reddddy?
MrThickRopes
23:13
Up in da club bruh got dat music goin like unc unc unc unc
23:45
MrThickRopes crunk
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.