28 U.S.C. § 2361

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

• NEW York Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Dev. Auth. & Minority Equity Cap. Corp.
  700 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the judgment was appropriate in determining the rights to the cash surrender value of the insurance policies and New York Life's liability to pay it, but remanded for clarification regarding Sterling's consent to the extinguishment of his tort claims.
• United States v. Major OIL Corp.
  583 F.2d 1152· 10th Cir.· 1978-09-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to order the IRS tax refund deposited into the registry as part of the interpleader fund, and that the refund was properly considered part of the interpleader res.
• Zylphia L. Powers v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
  439 F.2d 605· D.C. Cir.· 1971-01-20 ·cited 8×
  An insurance company in an interpleader action is not automatically liable for interest on deposited funds, and the award of interest depends on equitable considerations and the specific circumstances of the case. The trial court did not err in discharging the insurer without req
• Underwriters AT Lloyd's & Orion Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Nichols
  363 F.2d 357· 8th Cir.· 1966-06-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the interpleader action for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the insurers were exposed to potential multiple liability under Rule 22.
• Francis I. du Pont & Co. v. Sheen
  324 F.2d 3· 3d Cir.· 1963-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a dismissal with prejudice in an interpleader action bars a subsequent tort claim by a claimant against the plaintiff for improperly filing the interpleader suit, as the issue of good faith was implicitly decided.
• Boston OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Balbin
  591 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 6×
  A federal district court may not decline to exercise jurisdiction over an interpleader action simply because a state court action is pending, especially when state certification procedures are available for resolving state law issues.
• AETNA Ins. Co. v. Wallis Hartshorn
  477 F.2d 97· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by disposing of the merits of Claims, Inc.'s claim without providing adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, violating Fifth Amendment due process.
• United States v. Platt Contracting Co., Inc.
  324 F.2d 95· 1st Cir.· 1963-11-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that both orders constituted interlocutory injunctions, granting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and affirmed the district court's decisions.
• Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Rhoda J. Chase
  294 F.2d 500· 3d Cir.· 1961-09-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that New Jersey law, the domicile of the parties, governs the validity of their alleged common law marriage, and under that law, the marriage was invalid.
• Blair Holdings Corp. v. BAY City Bank & Tr. Co.
  234 F.2d 513· 9th Cir.· 1956-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the stipulation and arbitration award clearly indicated Crofoot owned the shares, and Bay City's pledge rights were lost when Crofoot escrowed the shares, thus Bay City had no title.
• NEW York Life Ins. Co. v. Welch
  D.D.C.· 1961-12-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the insurer's doubt regarding the proper recipient of policy proceeds due to potential adverse claims warranted interpleader, and the trial court erred in denying it and granting summary judgment to the beneficiary.
• Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Rainey
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-16
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant Plaintiff's motion for leave to deposit funds and for discharge, while denying it in part.
• In re Benefits for Primerica Policy Nos. Ending in 2084 & 3112
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-04
  The court granted Primerica's motion for interpleader, allowing it to deposit policy benefits into the court registry and be discharged from liability, but denied its request for an injunction.
• Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Jacobs
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-23
  The court granted Richard G. Jacobs' motion to intervene, finding it timely and that he stated a valid claim. The court denied the Estate's motion to amend its pleadings, finding it untimely and futile due to lack of standing. The court also granted-in-part and denied-in-part Pro
• Benjamin v. Soward
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-31
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Mendez v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n & Coll. Ret. Equities Fund
  982 F.2d 783· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-28
  The court held that the district court properly denied the stakeholder's motion for discharge due to unreasonable delay and bad faith in commencing the interpleader action, and did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing claimant.
• Ashton v. The Josephine BAY Paul & C. Michael Paul Found., Inc.
  918 F.2d 1065· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-16
  The court held that federal statutory interpleader jurisdiction was met and the probate exception did not require abstention, affirming the injunction.