28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)

236 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Wagenmann v. Adams
  829 F.2d 196· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff were without probable cause, and that the jury's verdicts on false arrest and false imprisonment were supported by the evidence.
• Amfac Mortg. Corp. v. Ariz. Mall OF Tempe, Inc.
  583 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1978-10-03 ·cited 69×
  The court held that a promissory note given in a commercial construction financing transaction is not a security under federal or Arizona securities laws, and a surety on a construction bond does not owe an implied tort duty of good faith to the obligee beyond the express terms o
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. City OF Long Beach
  772 F.2d 534· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction was not present for claims turning solely on contract interpretation, but diversity jurisdiction was improperly declined based on abstention principles. The court reversed dismissal of diversity claims and remanded, while affirmin
• RAY v. Bird & SON & Asset Realization Co., Inc.
  519 F.2d 1081· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing further discovery.
• Hymer v. Chai
  407 F.2d 136· 9th Cir.· 1969-02-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a federal court lacks jurisdiction over a loss of consortium claim filed by a spouse when that claim, though arising from the same incident, does not independently meet the minimum amount in controversy requirement and cannot be aggregated with the other spous
• Golden v. Dodge-Markham Co., Inc.
  1 F. Supp. 2d 1360· M.D. Fla.· 1998-04-17 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus federal jurisdiction was lacking.
• Mrs. Georgia Ann Toms v. Country Quality Meats, Inc.
  610 F.2d 313· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding Country Quality Meats, Inc.'s principal place of business was Georgia, and that plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint to properly allege jurisdiction.
• Rice v. The Rice Found.
  610 F.2d 471· 7th Cir.· 1979-12-04 ·cited 34×
  The court vacated the district court's disqualification order and remanded for reconsideration of subject matter jurisdiction and the impact of a recent state court decision on the disqualification issue.
• Mar. Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank
  959 F.2d 1194· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-02 ·cited 26×
  The New Jersey district court retained subject matter jurisdiction over claims related to a bankruptcy case filed in another district, and its proceedings were not automatically voided by the bankruptcy filing.
• Quaker State OIL Ref. Corp. v. Garrity OIL Co., Inc.
  884 F.2d 1510· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that summary judgment was appropriate for the plaintiff on most claims and counterclaims, and that the district court did not err in applying Massachusetts prejudgment interest law or denying leave to amend.
• Kane v. The Ford Motor Co.
  450 F.2d 315· 3d Cir.· 1971-11-11 ·cited 24×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a service letter as evidence because it was irrelevant to the plaintiff's theory of the case.
• F & S Constr. Co., Inc. v. Jensen
  337 F.2d 160· 10th Cir.· 1964-09-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that if it is established as a matter of law that a plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount, the court lacks jurisdiction, even if the claim was initially pleaded in good faith.
• NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United GAS Pipe Line Co.
  690 F.2d 1203· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the denial of consumers' intervention as of right and permissive intervention, but reversed the denial of city officials' permissive intervention.
• Vachon v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co.
  20 F.4th 1343· 11th Cir.· 2021-12-14 ·cited 17×
  The Eleventh Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review a district court's order remanding a case to state court based on an untimely notice of removal, as such orders are barred from appellate review by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
• Devore v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
  658 F. Supp. 2d 1372· M.D. Fla.· 2009-09-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a possibility of a valid claim against the non-diverse defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeded the federal threshold, thus denying remand.
• U.S. Bank v. Taveras
  2017 WL 5248499· M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-17 ·cited 16×
  The court denied defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal because they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or establish any basis for federal jurisdiction.
• J.A. Olson Co. v. City OF Winona
  818 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 16×
  A corporation's principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction is determined by the 'total activity' test, which considers both the 'nerve center' and the 'place of activity' based on the totality of the facts.
• Allen v. Ferguson
  791 F.2d 611· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review an order dismissing one defendant prior to remand, and that the district court erred in dismissing the defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction before addressing subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Hales v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
  500 F.2d 836· 4th Cir.· 1974-05-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' federal claim under 29 U.S.C. § 308(b) was properly before the court, and that the corporation, not the committee, was the 'administrator' of the profit-sharing plan.
• Monte v. S. Del. Cnty. Auth.
  321 F.2d 870· 3d Cir.· 1963-08-26 ·cited 16×
  The federal court lacked jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award because the parties specified a state court for such proceedings. The court also lacked jurisdiction to vacate or modify the award.
• Tele-Save Merchandising Co. v. Consumers Distrib. Co., Ltd.
  814 F.2d 1120· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Ohio Business Opportunity Plans Act did not apply because the parties' freely negotiated choice-of-law provision selecting New Jersey law was valid and did not violate a fundamental public policy of Ohio.
• Wood v. Stark Tri-County Bldg. Trades Council
  473 F.2d 272· 6th Cir.· 1973-02-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was not a legal certainty that the plaintiff could not recover more than the jurisdictional amount, and thus the district court had jurisdiction.
• Worthams v. Atlanta Life Ins. Co.
  533 F.2d 994· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the libel claim was barred by the statute of limitations, but the district court erred in dismissing the entire action for lack of jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy.
• Poitra v. Demarrias
  502 F.2d 23· 8th Cir.· 1974-08-28 ·cited 12×
  A federal court has diversity jurisdiction over a wrongful death action between two Indians occurring in Indian country, even if state courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction, because federal courts are not bound by state rules that would prevent them from exercising their own ju
• Mariana Deutsch and Abraham Deutsch v. Hewes St. Realty Corp.
  359 F.2d 96· 2d Cir.· 1966-03-30 ·cited 12×
  The court remanded the case for further proceedings, with a concurring judge suggesting the trial court might still dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction upon a more complete record.
• Irwin Klepper v. First Am. Bank
  916 F.2d 337· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a prior arbitration award, once satisfied, bars a subsequent claim for the same compensatory damages against another party. However, the court also held that the district court erred in dismissing a claim for incidental damages and attorney's fees for lack of
• Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Simpson
  404 F.2d 511· 7th Cir.· 1968-12-04 ·cited 11×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction if the amount in controversy, determined from the plaintiff's viewpoint and considering only claims against the insured up to the policy limits, does not exceed $10,000, even if a counterclaim exceeds that amount, especially when the defendant c
• Kontoulas v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.
  745 F.2d 312· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-03 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of motions to dismiss for improper venue and forum non conveniens, finding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of showing an adequate alternative forum.
• Kahal v. J. W. Wilson & Assocs., Inc.
  673 F.2d 547· D.C. Cir.· 1982-03-23 ·cited 9×
  A claim for punitive damages must have a colorable basis in law and fact to satisfy the federal jurisdictional amount requirement when it is the sole basis for jurisdiction.
• Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  669 F.2d 1242· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 9×
  A district court may, in its discretion, order matters admitted if a party fails to comply with Rule 36(a) by not making reasonable inquiry or if readily obtainable information is sufficient to admit or deny, especially in cases of discovery abuse.
• Fusco v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC
  806 F. Supp. 2d 1240· M.D. Fla.· 2011-08-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, and therefore, the case should be remanded.
• In re Motions to Certify Classes
  715 F. Supp. 2d 1265· S.D. Fla.· 2010-05-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that class certification was inappropriate due to significant manageability concerns and individualized factual issues, leading to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Putnam Resources v. Pateman
  958 F.2d 448· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a jury verdict, when construed in light of the court's instructions and the parties' acquiescence, can support a judgment even if the verdict form is not perfectly explicit regarding every claim. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's f
• Carlton v. Worcester Ins. Co.
  923 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for vehicles owned by a family member but not insured under the policy was clear, unambiguous, and valid under Rhode Island law, barring coverage for the insured's son's death.
• Crowley v. Glaze
  710 F.2d 676· 10th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff had established a change of domicile to Minnesota, thus conferring diversity jurisdiction on the district court.
• Martin v. THE Maint. Co., Inc.
  588 F.2d 355· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the City's contract with Mainco, interpreted under evolving New York law, allowed the City to seek indemnity from Mainco even though the City was also found negligent.
• Frieda Rader and Paul Rader v. Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co. OF Philadelphia
  242 F.2d 419· 2d Cir.· 1957-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court held that the District Court should have dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, not on res judicata grounds, because indispensable parties destroyed diversity jurisdiction.
• AMT Title Servs. of Tex., LLC v. TAG Agro, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to properly allege the citizenship of the parties, specifically the limited liability companies involved.
• N.Y. State Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Kalkus
  764 F.2d 1015· 4th Cir.· 1985-06-20 ·cited 7×
  The citizenship of all partners, both general and limited, must be considered to determine diversity jurisdiction for a limited partnership. A limited partner's citizenship is not irrelevant simply because they lack management authority or capacity to sue.
• Nieter v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C.
  2018 WL 3761045· M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-20 ·cited 6×
  A proposal for settlement, standing alone, does not establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Nicholas v. Buchanan
  806 F.2d 305· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient minimum contacts to justify personal jurisdiction over the defendant in Rhode Island.
• Griffin v. RED RUN Lodge, Inc.
  610 F.2d 1198· 4th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying injunctive relief based on an incorrect application of the comparative hardship doctrine and in dismissing the damages claim for lack of jurisdictional amount.
• Columbia Pictures Corp. v. Grengs
  257 F.2d 45· 7th Cir.· 1958-06-23 ·cited 6×
• U-Smc/DeMaria JV1, LLC v. PAL Env't Safety Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-05 ·cited 5×
  The court struck plaintiff's disclosure statement for failing to comply with Local Rule 3.03 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 because it did not adequately identify the LLC members' citizenship required to establish diversity jurisdiction. The court ordered plaintiff to file a corrected d
• Hee Jin Lowery v. AmGuard Ins. Co.
  90 F.4th 1098· 11th Cir.· 2024-01-10 ·cited 5×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly granted equitable reformation of the insurance policy due to mutual mistake and affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
• Denton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  733 F. Supp. 340· M.D. Fla.· 1990-03-29 ·cited 5×
  A petition for removal that fails to state the amount in controversy or the defendant corporation's principal place of business contains missing allegations, not imperfect ones, and thus cannot be amended after the thirty-day statutory period has expired.
• Manze v. State Farm Ins. Co. Appeal of Manze
  817 F.2d 1062· 3d Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 5×
  A plaintiff's timely notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) precludes the court from subsequently dismissing the action with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), and an order appointing an arbitrator is final and appealable if it grants full relief.
• Penteco Corp. Ltd. Partnership-1985A v. Union GAS Sys., Inc.
  929 F.2d 1519· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a limited partnership's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes depends on the citizenship of all its members, not just its general partners, and remanded for a determination of whether complete diversity existed.
• Knop v. McMAHAN
  872 F.2d 1132· 3d Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction existed because diversity was present at the time of trial and judgment, and affirmed the district court's findings of fraud and breach of contract. However, it reversed the denial of prejudgment interest.
• Pallazola v. Carolyn Rucker, R.N.
  797 F.2d 1116· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly found that diversity jurisdiction had been improperly manufactured by appointing an administratrix for the purpose of creating diversity, and thus the action was properly dismissed.