Case Citator › Von R. Trimble, Jr. v. Asarco, Inc.

Von R. Trimble, Jr. v. Asarco, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Eighth Circuit
Citation
232 F.3d 946
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
39 of 39
Citing cases (total)
39
Treatment dates
2002–2021
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Overruled in part. All 39 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected Von R. Trimble, Jr. v. Asarco, Inc.'s rule that every member of a diversity class action must independently meet the amount in controversy. Trimble's separate rulings on environmental cleanup costs and other issues were not at issue. Two district courts also declined to follow its interpretations of federal law. The three confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

39 later cases cite Von R. Trimble, Jr. v. Asarco, Inc.; 39 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Von R. Trimble, Jr. v. Asarco, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court rejected Trimble's rule requiring every class member to meet the diversity amount and held that section 1367 allows related claims below that amount when a named plaintiff qualifies.

    Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We hold that, where the other elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff in the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, § 1367 does authorize supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs in the same Article III case or controversy, even if those claims are for less than the jurisdictional amount specified in the statute setting forth the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. ... The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s view of § 1367 is, however, shared by the Courts of Appeals for the Third, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, and the latter two Courts of Appeals have expressly applied this rule to class actions. See Meritcare, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 166 F. 3d 214 (CA3 1999); Trimble v. Asarco, Inc., 232 F. 3d 946 (CA8 *5522000); Leonhardt v. Western Sugar Co., 160 F. 3d 631 (CA10 1998).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The court rejected Trimble's reading of section 1367 and held that a qualifying class member permits supplemental jurisdiction over other class members' claims below the diversity amount.

    Chapman Funeral Home, Inc. v. National Linen Service · M.D. Ala. · filed

    There is a circuit split on the issue of whether the rule in Zahn has been superceded by statute, however, with three circuits concluding that it has not. See Trimble v. Asarco, Inc., 232 F.3d 946, 962 (8th Cir.2000); ... Under the plain language of the statute, this court must conclude that Zahn is statutorily abrogated.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court rejected Trimble's requirement of a valid past cleanup cost claim before a CERCLA plaintiff may seek a declaration of liability for future cleanup costs.

    FIP Realty Co., Ltd. v. Ingersoll-Rand plc · S.D. Ohio · filed

    The Second, Third, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits each require a valid predicate claim in order to grant declaratory judgment on future costs. See, e.g., Gussack Realty Co. v. Xerox Corp., 224 F.3d 85, 92 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); United States v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 200 F.3d 143, 153-54 (3d Cir.1999); Trimble v. Asarco, Inc., 232 F.3d 946, 958 (8th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005); ... This Court agrees with these latter cases in so far as they do not require a valid predicate cost recovery claim to warrant a declaratory judgment on future liability.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Von R. Trimble, Jr. v. Asarco, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace