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

• Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Aguirre
  304 F.2d 879· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-20 ·cited 2×
• Bhd. OF Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Butte
  286 F.2d 706· 9th Cir.· 1961-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that appellants could not use supplemental pleadings to seek restoration of the status quo, as the original decree did not order such relief and their claims were untimely.
• Stolz-Wicks, Inc. v. Commercial Television Serv. Co., Inc.
  271 F.2d 586· 7th Cir.· 1959-10-27 ·cited 2×
  A party not privy to an illegal contract cannot assert its illegality as a defense, and a state statute barring foreign corporations from suing does not apply to interstate transactions.
• Henderson v. Nat'l Fid. Life Ins. Co.
  257 F.2d 917· 10th Cir.· 1958-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that future benefits under the health and accident policy were not recoverable in determining the amount in controversy, as Oklahoma law limits recovery to accrued benefits.
• Yandell v. Transocean AIR Lines
  253 F.2d 622· 9th Cir.· 1957-09-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a tort committed on land, even on a U.S. possession, is not an admiralty tort, and the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Commercial Ins. Co. v. Ramos
  243 F.2d 488· 1st Cir.· 1957-04-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal concerning local Puerto Rican law, as the amount in controversy did not exceed $5,000, and dismissed the appeal.
• Cornell v. Mabe
  206 F.2d 514· 5th Cir.· 1953-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a common law marriage requires an intent for the relationship to be permanent, and affirmed the dismissal of the Morgans' limitations defense due to constructive notice.
• Ames v. Mengel Co.
  190 F.2d 344· 2d Cir.· 1951-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the claims of stockholders in a spurious class action cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal court.
• Woods v. Kern
  181 F.2d 499· 3d Cir.· 1950-04-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the lower court had jurisdiction to order restitution and that a provision in its decree was too broad.
• Walton v. City OF Atlanta
  180 F.2d 143· 5th Cir.· 1950-03-02 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims where the amount in controversy does not exceed $3000, even if a federal question is raised.
• N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Greenfield
  154 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1946-04-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the amount in controversy, including the unpaid disability payments and a reasonable attorney's fee, did not exceed $3,000, thus the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
• Cannon v. Parker
  152 F.2d 706· 5th Cir.· 1945-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district judge had the authority to award attorney's fees to the plaintiffs against the assets of the corporations, as the suit protected corporate assets and benefited the corporations.
• Am. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Booze
  146 F.2d 329· 9th Cir.· 1944-12-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and stated a claim upon which declaratory relief could be granted, thus the dismissal was unwarranted.
• City OF Forsyth v. Mountain States Power Co.
  127 F.2d 583· 9th Cir.· 1942-04-27 ·cited 2×
  A federal court must dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to affirmatively establish jurisdiction, particularly when the amount in controversy is denied and not proven.
• Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butchers Workmen OF N. Am. v. Spreckels
  119 F.2d 64· 9th Cir.· 1941-04-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because no federal law was violated and no diversity of citizenship or amount in controversy was shown.
• Varn v. Asa D. Alderman
  42 Fla. 378· Fla.· 1900-06-01 ·cited 2×
  This case concerns whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear a case filed after a county court with exclusive jurisdiction over smaller claims was established. The court held that the Circuit Court erred in assuming jurisdiction, as the county court was the proper venue
• Jones v. Progressive Express Ins. Co.
  2020 WL 6699637· M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 federal jurisdictional threshold, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• Carew v. Desilet
  90 F.R.D. 49· M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet her burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction, as the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
• In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of App. Procedure 9.030
  285 So. 3d 1246· Fla.· 2019-12-19 ·cited 1×
  The Court adopts the proposed amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(B) to conform to recent legislative changes regarding appellate jurisdiction.
• Diamond v. Elvis Towing, Inc.
  268 So. 3d 249· Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-04-12 ·cited 1×
  Sherri Diamond petitioned for a writ of certiorari to quash a circuit court order transferring her class action lawsuit against Elvis Towing to county court. The court granted the petition, finding the circuit court erred in transferring jurisdiction when the alleged amount in co
• Legg v. Voice Media Grp., Inc.
  849 F. Supp. 2d 1327· S.D. Fla.· 2014-01-03 ·cited 1×
• Orozco v. McCormick 105, LLC
  150 So. 3d 1158· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-11-21 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court reversed a final summary judgment granted to McCormick, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the rent payment Orozco received was for past-due rent, which is crucial for proving civil theft and conversion.
• Mikesell v. FIA Card Servs., N.A.
  75 F. Supp. 489· M.D. Fla.· 2013-04-04 ·cited 1×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• Saberton v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  392 F. Supp. 2d 1358· M.D. Fla.· 2005-07-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's claim exceeded the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
• Logitech Cargo v. JW Perry, Inc.
  817 So. 2d 1033· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-06-05 ·cited 1×
  Logitech Cargo seeks certiorari to quash a protective order requiring it to travel to Wisconsin to depose the corporate representatives of the plaintiffs. The court grants the petition, holding that a defendant not seeking affirmative relief cannot be required to travel to the fo
• Boca Ciega Hotel, Inc. v. Bouchard Transp. Co.
  844 F. Supp. 1512· M.D. Fla.· 1994-02-18 ·cited 1×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• Sera Martell & Sera Martell Realty, Inc. v. Kurian
  626 So. 2d 705· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-10-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over certain claims because the amount in controversy was below the jurisdictional limit, requiring transfer to county court.
• 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.
• Kiernan v. Agency Rent A CAR, Inc.
  940 F.2d 917· 4th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 1×
  A self-insurer's liability for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is capped by the limits stated in the rental agreement, mirroring the statutory minimum liability coverage.
• Griffith v. Sealtite Corp.
  903 F.2d 495· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-30 ·cited 1×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the plaintiffs' separate wage claims, even when reduced to a single judgment, could not be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional minimum amount because the underlying causes of action were separate and distinct.
• Twigg v. Hosp. Dist. of Hardee Cnty.
  731 F. Supp. 469· M.D. Fla.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendants' motions to dismiss and strike should be denied in part and granted in part, finding that several claims, including negligence and a § 1983 claim, could proceed, but claims for punitive damages and pre-judgment interest were barred.
• King v. Gandolfo
  714 F. Supp. 1180· M.D. Fla.· 1989-06-06 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the 10b-5 claim was time-barred, but the civil RICO, Florida RICO, and common law claims could proceed.
• Courtney v. R.L. Schmeckpeper, Inc.
  442 So. 2d 294· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-11-30 ·cited 1×
  A painter appeals dismissal of a breach of contract claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that the ambiguous contract was for painting only one house, resulting in damages under $5,000, thereby losing circuit court jurisdiction. T
• Myrl E. Etheridge and Billy E. Etheridge v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
  559 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for failure to meet the jurisdictional amount, as it was not legally certain that less than $10,000 was recoverable.
• Beaman v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  369 F.2d 653· 4th Cir.· 1966-12-01 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes in a suit for disability benefits is limited to the past due installments, not the potential future benefits.
• Roland v. Jumper Creek Drainage Dist.
  S.D. Fla.· 1925-02-14 ·cited 1×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  Fifty-two Florida landowners sued a drainage district contractor for negligence in opening a canal that diverted water from a higher basin into a lower basin without first constructing adequate drainage outlets, causing flooding and crop damage. The court held that a contractor p
• Great W. Cas. Co. v. Nilda Meralla
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-02-06
  Great West Casualty Company sought to deposit $2 million in policy limits into federal court through an interpleader action against competing claimants from a fatal car accident, invoking a recent Florida statute providing insurers a safe harbor from bad faith lawsuits if they fi
• Raymond v. LSM Trading USA, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-02-03
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal of the amended complaint.
• Kelly v. Aylstock
  N.D. Fla.· 2026-02-02
  The court held that a pre-service 'snap removal' is proper if service requirements are met, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
• Ivy Beth Handsman and Michael Micalizzi v. Prayz
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-01-21
  The court held that the amended complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
• Johnson v. Tractor Supply Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-20
  The court held that the defendant's Notice of Removal was insufficient because it failed to establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Kelly v. Aylstock
  N.D. Fla.· 2026-01-16
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand should be denied because the amount in controversy likely exceeds $75,000 and the "forum defendant rule" does not bar removal when the forum defendant has not been properly served prior to removal.
• Grima v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-16
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was untimely because the plaintiff's residency in Florida was ascertainable from the initial complaint and attachments, triggering the 30-day removal period at that time. The court denied attorney's fees for the untimely rem
• Rellim Contracting LLC v. Kinsale Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-16
  The court held that the defendant properly established federal diversity jurisdiction, denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Reyes v. Am. Strategic Ins. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-15
  The court held that a defendant's conclusory assertion of damages based on undifferentiated, voluminous exhibits is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy for removal.
• Moore v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-12
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction based on the evidence provided.
• Charline Mathieu v. Progressive Select Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-02
  The court held that a notice of removal filed in the wrong federal court is untimely, requiring remand. Attorney's fees for improper removal are not awarded if the removing party had an objectively reasonable basis.
• Mitchell v. Paddock
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-23
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish complete diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
• FT. Myers TAV Apts, LLC v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-22
  The court held that plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed without prejudice because it failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship, a prerequisite for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
• AMT Title Servs. of Tex., LLC v. TAG Agro, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-19
  The court held that an amended complaint must be dismissed without leave to amend because the plaintiff, a limited liability company, failed to properly allege the citizenship of its members, thus failing to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity.