Amount In Controversy

1,259 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Selim v. Pan Am. Airways Corp.
  254 F. Supp. 2d 1316· S.D. Fla.· 2003-03-25
  The court held that removal was improper because complete diversity was lacking and the Airline Deregulation Act did not completely preempt the state law claims.
• Wassman v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co.
  797 So. 2d 626· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-10-12
  Wassman obtained a final county court judgment against Travelers for $22,453.52 based on a dishonored check. Travelers later filed an interpleader action in circuit court and sought to satisfy the judgment through deposit of bond funds into the registry. The appellate court rever
• Riley v. Merrill Lynch
  168 F. Supp. 2d 1352· M.D. Fla.· 2001-09-27
  The court held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) constitutionally preempts state law class actions involving nationally traded securities, and that diversity jurisdiction is lacking for a business trust with Florida shareholders.
• Seguros Commercial Am. v. Hall
  115 F. Supp. 2d 1371· M.D. Fla.· 2000-09-15
  The court held that while the Convention is self-executing and grants federal jurisdiction, it does not create a private right of action for the Mexican insurers to pursue claims in federal court.
• Baldwin SOD Farms, Inc. v. Corrigan
  746 So. 2d 1198· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-12-15
  Baldwin Sod Farms appeals an eviction order, arguing the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, wrongfully denied its jury trial demand, and failed to properly serve notice under the lease terms. The court affirmed jurisdiction but reversed on the jury trial issue, hol
• Brandt v. Weather Channel, Inc.
  42 F. Supp. 2d 1344· S.D. Fla.· 1999-03-18
  Removal was proper, but the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, warranting dismissal.
• Campos v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  967 F. Supp. 2d 955· S.D. Fla.· 1999-02-24
  The court held that the plaintiffs met the requirements for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) for their challenge to the INS's district-wide practices regarding medical waivers for naturalization.
• Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Daily
  1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11125· S.D. Fla.· 1998-05-29
  The court held that the parties' agreement clearly and unmistakably indicated their intent to submit all controversies, including eligibility for arbitration, to arbitration, and thus the arbitrator, not the court, has jurisdiction to rule on the claim's eligibility.
• Leahy v. Batmasian
  679 So. 2d 12· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-07-17
  Thomas Leahy appealed a contempt of court judgment to the District Court of Appeal, but the court dismissed the appeal because the judgment was actually entered by a county court judge, not a circuit court judge, making it reviewable only by the circuit court in its appellate cap
• Valentin D. Ochoa v. Interbrew Am., Inc.
  999 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1993-07-20
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it was not a legal certainty that the plaintiff could not recover the jurisdictional amount.
• Pavelka v. Carter
  996 F.2d 645· 4th Cir.· 1993-06-09
  The court held that governmental immunity does not bar recovery against the County for amounts exceeding the statutorily required security, and the bus driver is not immune from suit.
• Rosenboro v. KIM
  994 F.2d 13· D.C. Cir.· 1993-06-04
  The court held that a plaintiff's claim must appear to a legal certainty to be for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court properly dismissed Dorothy Rosenboro's claim but erred in dismissing Willard Ros
• Gottlieb v. Westin Hotel Co.
  990 F.2d 323· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-02
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 11 sanctions because the defendants presented a good faith argument regarding fraudulent joinder and the amount in controversy.
• Culbertson v. Libco Corp.
  983 F.2d 82· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-06
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction because the plaintiff, as legal titleholder of the note, met the amount in controversy requirement and complete diversity existed.
• J.E. Allison v. Sec. Benefit Life Ins. Co.
  980 F.2d 1213· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-03
  The court held that plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages were insufficient to meet the amount in controversy requirement, and dismissal was proper.
• Capitol Indem. Corp. v. Miles
  978 F.2d 437· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-29
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh v. Barbara L. (Lillian) Russell
  972 F.2d 628· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-08
  The court held that the insured's counterclaim does not definitively establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction if it does not account for all potential claims, such as medical benefits.
• Warth v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  792 F. Supp. 101· M.D. Fla.· 1992-06-04
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet the amount in controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction because the plaintiffs did not plead a specific dollar amount of damages.
• Woolard v. Heyer-Schulte
  1992 WL 110958· S.D. Fla.· 1992-05-13
  A defendant's notice of removal can supply missing jurisdictional facts not present in the plaintiff's complaint, provided those facts are not contradicted.
• Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Copy Plus
  939 F.2d 513· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-12
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Sharp's petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy, including potential punitive damages, could exceed $50,000.
• Justice v. Atchison
  927 F.2d 503· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-28
  The court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in removing the entire case, including damages claims not meeting the jurisdictional amount, when joined with a removable injunction claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
• Baker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  846 F.2d 495· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-10
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the statutory damages and potential attorney fees were insufficient to meet the jurisdictional amount.
• Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Juntunen
  838 F.2d 942· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-28
  The court held that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest, did not meet the $10,000 threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Duchesne v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  758 F.2d 27· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-29
  The court held that the plaintiff had not failed to establish that the actual amount in controversy could exceed $10,000, as required for diversity jurisdiction.
• Bus. Buyers OF NEW England, Inc. v. Gurham
  754 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1985-02-06
  The court held that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction must be without prejudice, and a party cannot predicate a judgment on the falsity of its own affidavit.
• Estevez-Gonzalez v. Kraft, Inc.
  606 F. Supp. 127· S.D. Fla.· 1985-01-03
  The court held that a removal petition is invalid if not all defendants who meet jurisdictional requirements join in or consent to the petition within the statutory time limit.
• Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps. (AFL-CIO) & William Mudgett v. Albanese
  418 So. 2d 1184· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-08-31
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the breach of fiduciary obligations claim, precluding summary judgment.
• Chaffin v. Taylor
  521 F. Supp. 1344· M.D. Fla.· 1981-09-16
  A parent receiving AFDC benefits on the basis of incapacity can establish eligibility by demonstrating inability to support OR care for their minor children, and states cannot deny benefits based solely on the ability to 'care' without considering the ability to 'support'.
• Blansett v. Am. Emp'rs Ins. Co.
  652 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-04
  The court held that the insurance policy's language clearly limited uninsured motorist coverage to $10,000 per person per accident, regardless of the number of vehicles insured.
• Love v. Budai
  653 F.2d 513· D.C. Cir.· 1981-03-16
  The court held that its per curiam opinion did not resolve the issue of punitive damages in constitutional tort actions and therefore denied the District's motion to reconsider its publication.
• William B. Tanner Co. v. Cameron Radio, Inc.
  617 F.2d 169· 8th Cir.· 1980-03-21
  The court held that it was not legally certain that the plaintiff could not recover the amount claimed, and therefore the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
• Groves v. Rogers
  547 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-25
  The court held that a party cannot manipulate the form of action to circumvent federal diversity jurisdiction requirements, especially when indispensable parties would destroy diversity.
• First Nat'l Bank of Jupiter v. Balmar Corp.
  40 Fla. Supp. 61· Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1974-02-11
  A mortgage foreclosure case where the court addresses a petition for attorney's fees. The plaintiff sought $11,000 in attorney's fees based on expert testimony, but the court reduced the award to $4,000, holding that reasonable fees must be determined by quantum meruit rather tha
• In re Transition Rule I
  268 So. 2d 381· Fla.· 1972-10-31
• Heymann v. Sears
  415 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-05
• Mr. and Mrs. Roland Tracy v. United States Cas. Co.
  402 F.2d 596· 5th Cir.· 1968-10-23
  The court held that it could not be determined with legal certainty that the amount in controversy was insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.
• Schnoor v. Linkiewicz
  397 F.2d 480· 7th Cir.· 1968-06-11
  The court held that the issue of probable cause was properly submitted to the jury, and the jurisdictional amount was sufficient as plaintiff's claim was made in good faith.
• Parker v. Erie-Lackawanna Sys.
  393 F.2d 229· 7th Cir.· 1968-04-10
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff received a proper hearing and was discharged for cause, and that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• John N. Newland in Bankr. for Hughes Homes, Inc. v. Wincel T. Edgar and Helen E. Edgar
  362 F.2d 911· 9th Cir.· 1966-06-08
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the intervening party destroyed diversity jurisdiction and no federal question was presented.
• The Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Keeling
  360 F.2d 88· 5th Cir.· 1966-01-11
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's ruling that an insurance policy's exclusion for medical payments did not apply when the insured was injured while occupying a non-owned vehicle.
• Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co. v. Fielding
  353 F.2d 195· 5th Cir.· 1965-12-02
  The court held that the amount in controversy exceeded the statutory minimum for diversity jurisdiction, and that the appellee designated unnecessary portions of the record.
• Kane v. Burlington Sav. Bank
  320 F.2d 545· 2d Cir.· 1963-07-09
  Social Security disability insurance benefits are not exempt from federal tax levy under the Internal Revenue Code's exemption for unemployment compensation.
• Nixon v. Loyal Order OF Moose Lodge NO. 750
  285 F.2d 250· 4th Cir.· 1960-12-30
  The court held that the District Court correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because it was legally certain that the plaintiff could not recover the jurisdictional amount.
• Lewis v. Consol. Underwriters
  276 F.2d 687· 5th Cir.· 1960-04-14
  The court held that the district court had diversity jurisdiction and erred in dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction based on the employer's failure to post notice under the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Law.
• Lizza & Sons, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  247 F.2d 262· 1st Cir.· 1957-08-01
  The court held that the surety's suit for declaratory judgment was premature and lacked an actual case or controversy, as its liability was contingent and not immediately ascertainable.
• Marshall v. Maginnis
  229 F.2d 347· 5th Cir.· 1956-02-02
  The court held that the dismissal for want of jurisdiction was proper, but reformed the judgment to explicitly state the reason for dismissal.
• Hijos v. Pasarell
  225 F.2d 715· 1st Cir.· 1955-09-12
  The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding no basis to deem it 'inescapably wrong' or 'patently erroneous'.
• Vaughan v. Warfield
  207 F.2d 350· 8th Cir.· 1953-10-21
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction because the claims were for monetary damages, not equitable relief concerning real property, and the prior state court judgment precluded the equitable claim.
• Bankers Life Co. v. Jacoby
  192 F.2d 1011· 9th Cir.· 1951-11-07
  Physical surrender of the insurance policy document is not a condition precedent to collecting the cash surrender value of extended insurance, especially when the policy is lost or unavailable.
• Garlin v. Currie
  185 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1950-11-28