Amount In Controversy Requirement

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

• United States v. City OF Chicago
  549 F.2d 415· 7th Cir.· 1977-01-11 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the withholding of federal revenue sharing funds from the City of Chicago was an improper and improvident exercise of equitable discretion.
• AG 1 Dennis R. Beller v. The Honorable J. William Middendorf
  632 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-23 ·cited 112×
  The court held that the Navy's regulations and discharge proceedings for homosexual conduct did not violate constitutional limitations, and that the district court had jurisdiction over nonmonetary claims despite the expiration of enlistment terms.
• Ellis v. Blum
  643 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1981-02-18 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the Federal Question Jurisdictional Amendments Act of 1980 mandates reversal and remand, and that mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 is available to review the Secretary's procedures.
• Zahn v. Int'l Paper Co.
  469 F.2d 1033· 2d Cir.· 1972-09-07 ·cited 54×
• Amen v. City OF Dearborn
  532 F.2d 554· 6th Cir.· 1976-03-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the plaintiffs failed to establish that each class member met the $10,000 amount in controversy requirement, and the district court overlooked the defendant's denial of this allega
• Opelika Nursing Home, Inc. v. Elliott L. Richardson
  448 F.2d 658· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based solely on the pleadings, without allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to present evidence to support their jurisdictional claim.
• Gerard and Gemma Brault v. Town OF Milton
  527 F.2d 730· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 42×
• Marv Hixon v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
  671 F.2d 1005· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 40×
  A pendent party must independently satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, and a principal is generally not liable for the torts of an independent contractor unless the activity is inherently hazardous or the contractor was negligently selected.
• Boelens v. Redman Homes
  759 F.2d 504· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that an amended complaint governs for determining original federal question jurisdiction, and a plaintiff cannot use a statute defensively to create jurisdiction where none was properly alleged.
• Odis R. VAN Buskirk v. Wilkinson
  216 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1954-11-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the petition failed to allege an amount in controversy and that, even if treated as a habeas corpus petition, the inmate's claim of double jeopardy was without merit.
• Spock v. David
  469 F.2d 1047· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-27 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge believes the jurisdictional amount issue should be remanded to the District Court for a substantive determination, as the lower court made no such finding.
• Anne Arnold and Edward E. Arnold v. Tex Troccoli
  344 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1965-05-03 ·cited 34×
  A district court has the power to dismiss diversity suits where it is clear to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional minimum amount.
• Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occidental S.S. Co.
  287 F.2d 252· 5th Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 34×
  A case removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction must affirmatively demonstrate the jurisdictional amount at the time of removal; a plaintiff's complaint stating damages "in excess of $5,000" does not meet the federal requirement of exceeding $10,000.
• Local Div. NO. 714, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Greater Portland Transit Dist. OF Portland
  589 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the union's suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the complaint stated a claim arising under federal law.
• Fields v. Washington
  173 F.2d 701· 3d Cir.· 1949-04-01 ·cited 30×
  The district court correctly dismissed the tenant's suit for rent overcharges due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $3,000.
• Appling Cnty. v. Mun. Elec. Auth. OF Ga.
  621 F.2d 1301· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-23 ·cited 26×
  The district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' constitutional claims were insubstantial and the county lacked standing.
• Captain Douglas Bruce McGAW v. Colonel A. Allen Farrow
  472 F.2d 952· 4th Cir.· 1973-01-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of federal question jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• MSP Recovery Claims v. The Hanover Ins. Co.
  995 F.3d 1289· 11th Cir.· 2021-04-30 ·cited 21×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over the cross-appeals challenging remand orders and affirmed the district court's denial of attorney's fees and costs.
• Jaroslav Sedivy v. Elliot L. Richardson
  485 F.2d 1115· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-26 ·cited 20×
  The court concurred with the result but expressed concern that the jurisdictional amount requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was not met, suggesting this issue requires further consideration.
• Application of Robert Matherson & the Oak Beach Inn Corp. v. The Long Island State Park Comm'n & the Jones Beach Parkway Auth.
  442 F.2d 566· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Long Island State Park Commission is not an alter ego of the state and thus not immune from suit, but the case must be remanded due to lack of alleged jurisdictional amount in controversy.
• Weddle v. Dir., Patuxent Inst.
  436 F.2d 342· 4th Cir.· 1970-12-30 ·cited 16×
  Jurisdiction for purely property claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires satisfaction of the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, not 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly
  921 F.2d 1310· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, their petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition were denied.
• Ridgely v. Sec'y OF the Dep't OF Health
  475 F.2d 1222· 4th Cir.· 1973-04-03 ·cited 14×
  Judicial review of Medicare entitlement claims under the pre-1972 version of 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff(b) is permitted regardless of the amount in controversy.
• The City OF Boulder v. Snyder
  396 F.2d 853· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in not dismissing the action for lack of federal jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy did not meet the statutory requirement.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Transp. Indem. Co.
  795 F.2d 538· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a carrier's processing of damage claims under ICC regulations does not create a prima facie case of liability against its insurer, and that certain defenses raised by the insurer were not affirmative defenses and thus not waived.
• Payne v. Gov't OF the Dist. OF Columbia
  D.D.C.· 1977-06-07 ·cited 13×
  The court, in a special concurrence, notes that the monetary value of the rights allegedly violated may not meet the jurisdictional amount and directs the trial court to consider this and other issues arising from a recent amendment to the jurisdictional statute.
• John F. "Jack" Walsh v. Ford Motor Co.
  945 F.2d 1188· D.C. Cir.· 1991-10-08 ·cited 12×
  A party who settles and releases all claims against a defendant is disqualified from appealing a denial of class certification, and if no other party is specified in the notice of appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction.
• Koster v. Turchi
  173 F.2d 605· 3d Cir.· 1949-02-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as the tenants failed to meet the jurisdictional amount and had not exhausted administrative remedies.
• Becker v. RE/MAX Horizons Realty, Inc.
  819 So. 2d 887· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-06-12 ·cited 11×
  Becker appeals a summary default judgment for a promissory note debt owed to Re/Max. The court affirmed that circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction because late fees added to the principal amount exceeded the $15,000 county court threshold, but reversed the default judgmen
• Gaus v. Miles, Inc.
  980 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000 for removal jurisdiction, thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Schreiber v. Lugar
  518 F.2d 1099· 7th Cir.· 1975-07-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that individual taxpayer claims cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal question jurisdiction, and the civil rights claim was frivolous.
• 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.
• Melancon v. Texaco, Inc.
  659 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 9×
  The court held that orders denying remand and vacating a joinder order are interlocutory and therefore not appealable.
• Thompson v. Thompson
  342 So. 3d 818· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-07-06 ·cited 8×
  John and Nanette Thompson appealed a county court judgment in an unlawful detainer action brought by the trustee of a family trust, arguing the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction once they asserted an equitable ownership interest in the property. The Third District C
• Allapattah Servs. v. Exxon Corp.
  362 F.3d 739· 11th Cir.· 2004-03-15 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting opinion argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not grant federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over unnamed class members in diversity-based class actions who fail to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The dissent contends that the Suprem
• Enders v. Am. Patent Search Co.
  535 F.2d 1085· 9th Cir.· 1976-02-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that 35 U.S.C. § 33 is not an Act of Congress 'relating to patents' for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1338 jurisdiction. Therefore, federal jurisdiction for claims implied from § 33 requires meeting the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• Euge v. Trantina
  422 F.2d 1070· 8th Cir.· 1970-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction.
• Chicago v. Stude
  204 F.2d 954· 8th Cir.· 1953-06-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the filing of a complaint alleging diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy properly invoked the original jurisdiction of the federal district court, notwithstanding a prior, procedurally flawed attempt to appeal a state administrative
• Love v. Budai
  665 F.2d 1060· D.C. Cir.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 6×
  Summary judgment for officers Budai, Robertson, and Finkelberg is reversed because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding their conduct and the jurisdictional amount for Finkelberg's claim.
• Albright v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  531 F.2d 132· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 6×
  A federal court's jurisdiction upon removal is determined by the pleadings at the time of removal, and subsequent events reducing the amount in controversy do not divest jurisdiction, even if the same judge previously found the claim insufficient.
• Moore v. Betit
  511 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction based on speculative damages, and that the case should be remanded for further consideration of the amount in controversy, particularly regarding the 'trust fund' theory.
• Gibson v. Jeffers
  478 F.2d 216· 10th Cir.· 1973-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege facts to establish the jurisdictional amount required for federal court jurisdiction, even after multiple amendments.
• Kan. City Terminal Ry. Co. v. Jordon Mfg. Co.
  750 F.2d 551· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 4×
  A suit by a railroad to recover unpaid freight charges arises under the Interstate Commerce Act and is not subject to the $10,000 amount in controversy requirement added to 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) by the 1978 amendment.
• Lopez v. Arraras
  606 F.2d 347· 1st Cir.· 1979-10-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the case must be remanded because of serious doubts concerning the district court's jurisdiction and because HUD is a necessary party for proper resolution.
• Simring v. GreenSky, LLC
  29 F.4th 1262· 11th Cir.· 2022-03-28 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the remand order and that the district court erred in applying CAFA's local controversy exception, reversing the remand.
• Klempner v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins.
  196 F. Supp. 2d 1233· S.D. Fla.· 2001-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal diversity jurisdiction cannot be predicated on the claim of an unnamed putative class member, nor can claims be aggregated under the common right exception in this case.
• Stanley v. Tucker
  441 F.2d 740· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claim involved property rights, not personal rights required for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
• Mikesell v. FIA Card Servs., N.A.
  75 F. Supp. 489· M.D. Fla.· 2013-04-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the notice of removal was timely because the initial complaint did not facially establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and a subsequent settlement demand provided the necessary amount in controversy within the removal period.
• Boca Ciega Hotel, Inc. v. Bouchard Transp. Co.
  844 F. Supp. 1512· M.D. Fla.· 1994-02-18 ·cited 1×
  The court held that plaintiffs' Oil Pollution Act claim must be dismissed for failure to present claims to the responsible party, and diversity jurisdiction is lacking due to common citizenship and failure to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
• Romarico S. More v. Intelcom Support Servs., Inc.
  960 F.2d 466· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-11 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the treaty is not self-executing as to plaintiffs and that Intelcom did not improperly terminate plaintiffs' employment contracts. The court deferred to the Department of Defense's interpretation of the treaty and found the employment contract unambiguous.