Amount In Controversy

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

• Jones v. Walker
  184 F.2d 839· 8th Cir.· 1950-11-07
  Federal district courts lack jurisdiction over a landlord's claim for a rent increase determined by the Housing Expediter when the amount is less than $3,000 and there is no diversity of citizenship.
• J & K Sales Co., Inc. v. Gemex, Inc.
  166 F.2d 569· 1st Cir.· 1948-02-27
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and thus could not be successfully challenged on appeal.
• Fleming v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  146 F.2d 128· 5th Cir.· 1944-12-18
  The court held that an award of $3,000 in punitive damages was excessive as a matter of law, and the case was properly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
• Bowles v. Franceschini
  145 F.2d 510· 1st Cir.· 1944-11-10
  The Administrator may recover damages for violations of price regulations even if committed in good faith, as the statute imposes absolute liability for such violations.
• Marks v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp.
  129 F.2d 759· 4th Cir.· 1942-07-30
  The court held that the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) could sue in federal court on a note assigned to it, and that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional minimum, despite figures on the note's back.
• United Enters., Inc. v. Dubey
  128 F.2d 843· 5th Cir.· 1942-06-16
  The court held that the federal court had jurisdiction and that the Florida statute regulating beauty culture was constitutional and applicable to the appellant's business.
• Johnson v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the United States
  127 F.2d 77· 6th Cir.· 1942-04-08
  The District Court lacked jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not meet the federal jurisdictional minimum.
• ST. Louis Union Tr. Co. v. Stephens
  116 F.2d 574· 5th Cir.· 1941-01-04
  The court held that the amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction purposes exceeded the minimum requirement, as the total debt guaranteed was at issue, not just individual guarantor liability.
• Brush v. World Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 1929-06-25
  District court denied motion to remand insurance policy breach suit, holding that interest recoverable on the policy amount satisfies federal jurisdictional amount requirement under Continental Casualty Co. v. Spradlin, approved by the Supreme Court.