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

• AETNA Ins. Co. v. Chicago
  229 F.2d 584· 10th Cir.· 1956-01-19 ·cited 36×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  Claims arising from a single instrument but representing separate, distinct rights cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount in federal court.
• Odis R. VAN Buskirk v. Wilkinson
  216 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1954-11-08 ·cited 36×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• Johnson v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P'ship
  641 So. 2d 58· Fla.· 1994-06-16 ·cited 35×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether class action claims can be aggregated to satisfy circuit court jurisdictional requirements. The Court held that aggregation is permissible in state court class actions, reversing the Fourth Di
• 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.
• Kareem Abdul Jihaad v. O'Brien
  645 F.2d 556· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 34×
  A prison official is entitled to qualified immunity if they enforce a facially valid regulation and do not know or should not know that the regulation violates a well-established constitutional right, even if the prisoner sincerely believes their rights are violated.
• Chaudoin v. Atkinson
  494 F.2d 1323· 3d Cir.· 1974-04-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Adjutant General abused his discretion and issued an unlawful order by dismissing a civilian technician for refusing a funeral detail duty unrelated to his job description, and that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1361.
• Spock v. David
  469 F.2d 1047· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-27 ·cited 34×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• Long v. Dist. OF Columbia
  469 F.2d 927· D.C. Cir.· 1972-09-06 ·cited 34×
• Anne Arnold and Edward E. Arnold v. Tex Troccoli
  344 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1965-05-03 ·cited 34×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• Jordan v. Hutcheson
  323 F.2d 597· 4th Cir.· 1963-09-17 ·cited 34×
  A federal court has the power to enjoin state legislative committee actions that violate citizens' constitutional rights, even if the committee acts under color of state law.
• Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occidental S.S. Co.
  287 F.2d 252· 5th Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 34×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Templeton
  181 F.2d 527· 8th Cir.· 1950-04-14 ·cited 34×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  The court held that awards by the National Railroad Adjustment Board were void for lack of notice to affected employees, and subsequent agreements implementing these awards were an unjustified interference with the employees' right to employment.
• John F. "Jack" Walsh v. Ford Motor Co.
  807 F.2d 1000· D.C. Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure less stringently in Magnuson-Moss Act cases and by relieving plaintiffs of the individual notice requirement.
• Davis H. Elliot Co. Inc. v. Caribbean Utils. Co., Ltd.
  513 F.2d 1176· 6th Cir.· 1975-03-31 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the defendant corporation had sufficient minimum contacts with Kentucky to establish personal jurisdiction, and that the complaint stated a claim for tortious interference with contract against the individual defendants.
• Webber v. The EYE Corp.
  721 F.2d 1067· 7th Cir.· 1983-10-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute and for lack of jurisdiction, as the dismissal was too severe a sanction given the circumstances.
• Fakouri v. Cadais
  147 F.2d 667· 5th Cir.· 1945-02-22 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a nuncupative testament by public act is void if it does not expressly state on its face that the will was dictated to the notary and written down by him in the presence of the witnesses, as required by Louisiana law.
• By-Prod Corp. v. Armen-Berry Co.
  668 F.2d 956· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the federal wiretapping claim was properly dismissed on summary judgment, and the state law claim, as a permissive counterclaim, lacked independent federal jurisdiction.
• 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×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• Potrero Hill Cmty. Action Comm. v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  410 F.2d 974· 9th Cir.· 1969-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the tenants' claims could not be aggregated to meet the $10,000 amount in controversy requirement for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because they did not assert a single right in which they had a common and undivided interest.
• Turner v. Wilson Line OF Mass., Inc.
  242 F.2d 414· 1st Cir.· 1957-03-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims did not arise under federal law, and the damages for pain and suffering did not meet the jurisdictional minimum.
• Fields v. Washington
  173 F.2d 701· 3d Cir.· 1949-04-01 ·cited 30×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  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.
• Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Schultz
  948 So. 2d 1027· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-02-23 ·cited 29×
  Progressive Express Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a fee award in a PIP insurance dispute where the county court awarded attorney's fees of $193,750 (including a 2.5x multiplier) for pursuing a claim involving only $1,315.30 in unpaid chiropractic bills. The Fifth
• Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Dan A. Ditmore, M.D., & Sea Island, P.C.
  729 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted on claims of deceit and unfair practices, as genuine issues of material fact existed regarding misrepresentation and state of mind. The dismissal of the declaratory relief count was affirmed, but the restitution count wa
• Local Div. 519, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Lacrosse Mun. Transit Util. & City of LaCrosse
  585 F.2d 1340· 7th Cir.· 1978-10-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to enforce the 13(c) agreement, and that abstention was not appropriate. The court also found the preliminary injunction was properly issued.
• Zumerling v. Devine
  769 F.2d 745· Fed. Cir.· 1985-07-31 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) properly applied section 7(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in calculating overtime payments for federal firefighters by including premium pay in the regular rate and dividing by total tour of duty hours.
• Premier Indus. Corp. v. Tex. Indus. Fastener Co.
  450 F.2d 444· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-04 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the jurisdictional amount was met and that the covenants not to compete were valid and enforceable under Ohio law, thus affirming the trial court's judgment with a modification to extend the injunction period.
• Application of Robert W. Davenport v. The Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.
  241 F.2d 511· 2d Cir.· 1957-02-04 ·cited 27×
  The court held that both the order denying remand and the order denying arbitration were appealable, and that the grievance concerning the substitution of wage survey companies was not an arbitrable issue under the collective bargaining agreement.
• Adler v. N. Hotel Co.
  175 F.2d 619· 7th Cir.· 1949-06-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 grants federal courts general jurisdiction to hear treble damage claims for rent overcharges, regardless of the amount in controversy.
• Pure Oil Co. v. Puritan Oil Co., Inc.
  127 F.2d 6· 2d Cir.· 1942-03-14 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of trademark infringement, even if not definitively proven at the trial level, were substantial enough to confer jurisdiction on the district court, entraining jurisdiction over the unfair competition claim.
• Sellers v. O'Connell
  701 F.2d 575· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 26×
  The court should reverse the district court's dismissal and allow amendment of jurisdictional allegations.
• 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.
• Domingo Roque Molina v. Paul T. Richardson & the City of Los Angeles
  578 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-21 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's decision, find jurisdiction, and infer a cause of action against the city directly from the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Otto T. Schwab v. Erie Lackawanna R.R. Co.
  438 F.2d 62· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-02 ·cited 26×
  A defendant who properly impleads third parties may join a separate claim for property damages arising from the same occurrence, provided there is ancillary jurisdiction.
• Hedberg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  350 F.2d 924· 8th Cir.· 1965-08-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount because they had a common and undivided interest in the defendant's conduct, and that the restrictive covenant in the employment contracts was reasonable and enforceable under Minneso
• McDONALD v. Patton
  240 F.2d 424· 4th Cir.· 1957-01-07 ·cited 26×
  A federal court's jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy is determined by the plaintiff's good faith claim, and dismissal is only proper if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount.
• Commercial Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fowles
  154 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1946-04-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that future benefits under an insurance policy cannot be considered part of the amount in controversy for establishing federal diversity jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.
• Livingston v. E. M. L'Engle for Susan L'Engle and Madeline L'Engle
  27 Fla. 502· Fla.· 1891-01-01 ·cited 26×
  This is an action for unpaid rent and taxes on a leased property in Florida. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment for the lessor, holding that a lessor may sue for rent accrued before an eviction and that the tenant's damages from wrongful eviction must arise fro
• Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Bd. & E. Airlines, Inc.
  681 F.2d 1039· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) had the statutory authority under the Federal Aviation Act to regulate smoking on aircraft, and that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 did not divest the CAB of this authority. The court also held that there was no implied
• The Quinault Tribe OF Indians OF the Quinault Reservation IN the State OF Wash. v. Gallagher
  368 F.2d 648· 9th Cir.· 1966-09-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a newly enacted jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1362, applies to pending appeals and grants jurisdiction to the Indian tribe, but the tribe's claims regarding state assumption of jurisdiction fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Aladdin's Castle, Inc. v. The City OF Mesquite
  630 F.2d 1029· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the ordinance's "connection with criminal elements" language is void for vagueness, violating due process, but affirmed the district court's upholding of the age restriction.
• Div. 1287, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Kan. City Area Transp. Auth.
  582 F.2d 444· 8th Cir.· 1978-08-21 ·cited 24×
  A dispute concerning a § 13(c) agreement, entered into under the Urban Mass Transportation Act, arises under federal law and is thus within federal court jurisdiction.
• Lecil Hander v. SAN Jacinto Junior Coll.
  522 F.2d 204· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-29 ·cited 24×
  Jurisdiction in this case is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Texas junior college districts are not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
• Goldsmith v. Major General James W. Sutherland
  426 F.2d 1395· 6th Cir.· 1970-05-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000, thus the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
• Zunamon v. Brown
  418 F.2d 883· 8th Cir.· 1969-11-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was not legally certain to be less than $10,000, and that the appellants waived any objection to the quiet title action by failing to demand a jury trial.
• Brown Jones v. Landry
  387 F.2d 102· 5th Cir.· 1967-12-11 ·cited 24×
  A district court cannot dismiss a case for lack of jurisdictional amount if it appears only to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed; the jury, not physicians, determines causation.
• Sapienza v. Karland, Inc.
  154 So. 2d 204· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-06-04 ·cited 24×
  Sapienza appealed a judgment striking his conversion complaint as a sham pleading. The trial court found contradictions between Sapienza's deposition testimony and interrogatory answers regarding his ownership interest in the allegedly converted property, but the appellate court
• Ambassador E., Inc. v. Orsatti, Inc.
  257 F.2d 79· 3d Cir.· 1958-06-26 ·cited 24×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  The court held that the jurisdictional amount was met by the value of the interest sought to be protected (goodwill), and that the plaintiff was entitled to full protection of its trade name, not the limited relief granted by the lower court.
• Pate v. Standard Dredging Corp.
  193 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1952-01-11 ·cited 24×
  A Jones Act claim, even if joined with claims for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure, is not removable to federal court if the amount in controversy for maintenance and cure does not exceed $3,000.
• Loew's Drive-In Theatres, Inc. v. Park-In Theatres, Inc.
  174 F.2d 547· 1st Cir.· 1949-04-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the patent claims were invalid for lack of invention, reversing the lower court's judgment of validity and infringement. The court also declined to definitively rule on its appellate jurisdiction over the non-federal royalty claim.
• Alderman v. Elgin
  125 F.2d 971· 7th Cir.· 1942-02-10 ·cited 24×
  An appellate court cannot permit amendments to cure jurisdictional defects; such amendments must be made in the trial court. Federal jurisdiction requires diversity of citizenship and sufficient amount in controversy for all plaintiffs.