Loggins V Scooggins Case Brief Summary

Plaintiff cannot overcome the presumption that out of state students lack the intent to remain in the new state indefinitely. Scoggins v. Pullock, 727 F.2d 1025 (11th Cir. 1984). Mas v. Perry 489 F. 2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974) In Scoggins, the court held that the presumption was strong unless there was enough evidence to establish that the student’s domicile had indeed changed. The plaintiff in Scoggins originally moved to the new state to undertake graduate studies and did not have any definite future plans to remain in the state. The court held that since this was the sole reason that the plaintiff was in the state and because of the indefiniteness of the plaintiff’s future the plaintiff’s home state was her domicile for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction. Scoggins, 727 F.2d at 1027. In Mas the court held that that a student’s domicile reverted to their parent’s domicile …show more content…
Plaintiff stated that she plans to look for employment after graduation in Wisconsin or elsewhere. Therefore, since Plaintiff is unsure, she does not show enough intent to remain in the state and her domicile remains in Alabama until she establishes a new domicile. Furthermore, the plaintiff as in Scoggins, moved to Wisconsin for the sole reason of attending graduate school. Plaintiff is also similar to the plaintiff in Mas. Plaintiff is indefinite on where she will seek employment post graduation. Plaintiff cannot defeat the presumption about out-of-state students because her indefiniteness shows that she lacks the requisite intention required by the court. Analogous to the plaintiff in Mas, Plaintiff has stated that she has no intention in returning to Alabama. However, her lack of intent to return does not defeat the indefiniteness of her intention to remain in the state. Thus, the court should find that the presumption that out-of-state students lack the intent to remain in the new state should