Amount In Controversy

1,259 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 81 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co.
  228 F.3d 1255· 11th Cir.· 2000-09-26 ·cited 165×
  This diversity class action involved a dispute over whether insurance policies covering vehicle physical damage required compensation for diminished value after repair. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded on ju
• Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement Against Racism AND THE Klan
  777 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-12 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the discovery order did not violate the First Amendment and that the default judgment was a proper sanction for willful noncompliance, but the damages award lacked an adequate record basis.
• 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×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• L'Aiglon Apparel, Inc. v. Lana Lobell, Inc.
  214 F.2d 649· 3d Cir.· 1954-07-02 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint stated a cause of action under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act for fraudulent advertising, but that Section 44 of the Act did not provide federal jurisdiction for domestic unfair competition claims.
• Libby v. City Nat'l Bank
  592 F.2d 504· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-28 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction for the interpleader action and vacated that judgment. It also found that certain suppliers' claims did not meet the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. The court reversed the finding of breach of contract a
• IVY Broad. Co., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. & N.Y. Tel. Co.
  391 F.2d 486· 2d Cir.· 1968-02-13 ·cited 87×
  A federal court has jurisdiction over claims for negligence and breach of contract in interstate telephone service, as these claims arise under federal law, and over counterclaims for unpaid charges that are compulsory or arise under the Communications Act.
• Dudley v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  778 F.3d 909· 11th Cir.· 2014-12-29 ·cited 84×
  Eli Lilly appealed a district court order remanding a class action employment dispute to state court, arguing the court erred in finding that Lilly failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million under the Class Action Fai
• Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Labs.
  207 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1953-09-16 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against appellants for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
• Langevin v. Chenango Court, Inc.
  447 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 78×
  The court held that tenants in FHA-assisted housing projects are entitled to a fair administrative hearing before rent increases are approved, as a matter of due process.
• Hackner v. Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y.
  117 F.2d 95· 2d Cir.· 1941-01-13 ·cited 76×
  The court held that claims cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount unless they are joint in nature; however, one plaintiff's claim, if valid, could proceed without a new suit.
• MAS v. Perry
  489 F.2d 1396· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-22 ·cited 72×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper because Mrs. Mas retained her Mississippi citizenship and the jurisdictional amount was met in good faith by Mr. Mas.
• Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Ray
  52 Fla. 634· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 69×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed a Circuit Court judgment affirming a county judge's award of damages to G. W. Ray against the Seaboard Air Line Railway for negligent delay of perishable freight. The court held that the county judge lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the
• Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Food Fair, Inc.
  177 F.2d 177· 1st Cir.· 1949-09-21 ·cited 62×
  Federal jurisdiction was proper because the potential value of protecting the plaintiff's trade name in a new market, including the right to expand without local competition, exceeded the jurisdictional minimum. The Massachusetts statute provided grounds for injunctive relief aga
• Brewer v. Hoxie Sch. Dist. NO. 46 OF Lawrence Cnty.
  238 F.2d 91· 8th Cir.· 1956-10-25 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against individuals and organizations conspiring to obstruct the desegregation of public schools, as the action arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
• Martinez v. Elliot L. Richardson
  472 F.2d 1121· 10th Cir.· 1973-01-29 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court's final judgment was ambiguous and required clarification regarding the dismissal of claims and the retention of jurisdiction for certain plaintiffs. It also found that the district court had jurisdiction despite the lack of explicit finding
• Mayburg v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  740 F.2d 100· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-02 ·cited 58×
  The court held that an individual receiving only custodial care in a skilled nursing facility is not an 'inpatient' for the purpose of resetting the Medicare 'spell of illness' clock.
• Mann v. The City OF Tucson
  782 F.2d 790· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 56×
  The court concurred in the result, finding substantial uncertainty in § 1983 jurisprudence regarding the significance of available state remedies.
• Nelson v. Keefer
  451 F.2d 289· 3d Cir.· 1971-11-15 ·cited 56×
  A district court may dismiss a diversity action pre-trial if it appears to a legal certainty that the claims are for less than the jurisdictional amount, even if damages are unliquidated.
• Jaconski v. Avisun Corp. & W. V. Pangborne & Co., Inc.
  359 F.2d 931· 3d Cir.· 1966-04-13 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to establish to a legal certainty that the plaintiff could not recover the jurisdictional amount, and therefore, the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was improper.
• Hahn v. United States
  757 F.2d 581· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over monetary claims exceeding $10,000, and erred in concluding plaintiffs were entitled to constructive service credit under applicable statutes.
• Overnite Transp. Co. v. Chicago Indus. Tire Co.
  697 F.2d 789· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-13 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to award attorney's fees after the appeal of the underlying case was perfected and affirmed, and that the attorneys' conduct did not warrant sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• Manual de J. Gomez v. Wilson
  477 F.2d 411· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-23 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court correctly found police spot checks unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, but the case should be remanded for further proceedings to determine the scope of relief, particularly regarding class action.
• Zahn v. Int'l Paper Co.
  469 F.2d 1033· 2d Cir.· 1972-09-07 ·cited 54×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
• Byers v. Guinevere E. Byers
  254 F.2d 205· 5th Cir.· 1958-04-07 ·cited 54×
  The court held that declaratory relief was inappropriate because the controversy was too contingent and lacked a necessary party (the trustee) for effective relief.
• United States v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  543 F.2d 676· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-10 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the 1875 Act does not apply to executive order reservations and that individual allottees' claims cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount. It affirmed a partial easement for lands ceded in 1906 but reversed the finding of a license.
• Graham v. Henegar
  640 F.2d 732· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 48×
  Statutory attorney's fees must be included when calculating the amount of a Tucker Act claim for jurisdictional purposes. If the total claim, including fees, exceeds $10,000, the district court lacks jurisdiction.
• Gertrude P. Fuller v. Volk
  351 F.2d 323· 3d Cir.· 1965-09-30 ·cited 48×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the original plaintiffs (taxpayers) due to insufficient amount in controversy and that the record was insufficient to determine jurisdiction for the intervening plaintiffs.
• Amen v. City OF Dearborn
  532 F.2d 554· 6th Cir.· 1976-03-24 ·cited 46×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• Hanson v. Triangle Publ'ns, Inc.
  163 F.2d 74· 8th Cir.· 1947-08-15 ·cited 46×
  The court should refuse to grant monopoly rights in the word 'seventeen' for merchandise labels, as it is a descriptive term that has entered the public domain.
• Nikki McIntosh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
  5 F.4th 1309· 11th Cir.· 2021-07-27 ·cited 44×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred by dismissing the case sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were sufficient to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc.
  253 F.2d 780· 6th Cir.· 1958-04-01 ·cited 44×
  A valid defense to a claim does not, as a matter of legal certainty, preclude federal jurisdiction if the plaintiff's claim for the jurisdictional amount was made in good faith.
• Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org.
  101 F.2d 774· 3d Cir.· 1939-01-26 ·cited 44×
  The dissenting judge argued that the ordinance requiring permits for public assemblies was constitutional and that the Director of Public Safety did not abuse his discretion in refusing a permit, citing the need to prevent riots and disorderly assemblages. The judge also contende
• Gerard and Gemma Brault v. Town OF Milton
  527 F.2d 730· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 42×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
• Indus. Elecs. Corp. v. Cline
  330 F.2d 480· 3d Cir.· 1964-04-21 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proof regarding the amount in controversy and irreparable injury.
• Fisch v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  169 F.2d 266· 6th Cir.· 1948-08-02 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Portal-to-Portal Act is constitutional and that it validly withdrew jurisdiction from federal courts to hear claims for overtime compensation for activities not compensable under the Act, even if based on contracts with the government.
• Hatridge v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  415 F.2d 809· 8th Cir.· 1969-09-02 ·cited 41×
  Federal jurisdiction exists for a removed state action even if the plaintiff attempts to reduce the amount in controversy below the jurisdictional minimum, especially when the defendant's potential liability is significant and the claims are intertwined with federal claims.
• Anderson v. Moorer
  372 F.2d 747· 5th Cir.· 1967-02-09 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata due to prior Alabama state court decrees, and that the federal court lacked diversity jurisdiction over claims against her Michigan co-owners.
• Wyo. Ry. Co. v. Herrington
  163 F.2d 1004· 10th Cir.· 1947-10-17 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction and that the attorney was entitled to recover the reasonable value of services rendered on a quantum meruit basis.
• Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson
  157 F.2d 653· 10th Cir.· 1946-09-20 ·cited 41×
  A federal court should not dismiss a declaratory judgment action solely because another suit is pending in state court if the federal action is more appropriate for settling the controversy.
• Norton Sarnoff and Carl Fletcher v. Am. Home Prods. Corp.
  798 F.2d 1075· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-20 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Fletcher's claim was properly dismissed for failing to meet the amount in controversy requirement and that the choice of law provision was enforceable, applying New York law to the forfeiture condition.
• Marv Hixon v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
  671 F.2d 1005· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 40×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp.
  855 F.2d 1188· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court's damage awards must be recalculated to exclude injuries not proven to a reasonable medical certainty.
• Richter Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Mrs. Clara Harrison
  147 Fla. 732· Fla.· 1941-07-15 ·cited 37×
  The circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the amount in controversy, based on good faith claims, did not exceed the $5,000 limit for inferior courts.
• Anderson v. Wilco Life Ins. Co.
  943 F.3d 917· 11th Cir.· 2019-11-22 ·cited 36×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the face value of life insurance policies is includable in the amount in controversy when plaintiffs seek to reinstate lapsed policies, thus meeting the Class Action Fairness Act's $5 million threshold.
• 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.
• Kimball v. Callahan
  493 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that Klamath Indians who withdrew from the tribe retain treaty rights to hunt, trap, and fish free of state regulation on their ancestral reservation lands, even after termination of federal supervision.
• 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