Court Opinion

ID: 9448263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:28:46.988632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:20.942657
License: Public Domain

JONES, Circuit Judge,
(dissenting).
The district court concluded that the amount involved in this cause was $3,-835.63, the difference between 4% and 5% of the interest collected. My review of the record, the briefs, and the opinion of the majority has convinced me of the correctness of the district court’s determination. The jurisdictional amount was absent.
The demands of the Florida officials upon the insurance company cannot require it to cancel insurance on the life of appellant if such cancellation would be contrary to law. A judgment, finding the 4% rate proper, in an action between the appellant and the insurance company would give him full protection. This being so, and nothing being shown to indicate any attempted coercion of appellant by state officials, it follows, I think, that no cause of action is stated against the state officials. Even though such jurisdiction is present, this is a case where the court, in the exercise of its discretion, should decline to exercise that jurisdiction. Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424.
I dissent.