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

• Norris v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  324 So. 2d 108· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-12-16 ·cited 23×
  Florida appellate court quashed a circuit court's transfer of a personal injury action to county court, holding that jurisdiction must be determined by the amount claimed in good faith, not by the court's skepticism about the claim's validity.
• Rincon Band OF Mission Indians v. Cnty. OF SAN Diego & J. C. O'Connor
  495 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a general threat of enforcement, without a history of prosecution or specific immediacy, is insufficient to establish a justiciable case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court also found that a party ca
• Berman v. Narragansett Racing Ass'n, Inc.
  414 F.2d 311· 1st Cir.· 1969-07-31 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement because they shared a common and undivided interest in a fund, and that the class was sufficiently defined and not antagonistic.
• Seth v. British Overseas Airways Corp.
  329 F.2d 302· 1st Cir.· 1964-03-23 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Warsaw Convention's liability limitations apply and that the airline provided sufficient notice of these limitations on the baggage check. Federal jurisdiction was established under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).
• Troup v. McCART
  238 F.2d 289· 5th Cir.· 1956-11-14 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the lower court correctly dismissed the action for lack of federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff's individual claim did not meet the $3,000 threshold and the action was not a 'true' class action allowing for aggregation of claims.
• A.W. Neumann and Joe Crescenzi v. R.D. Brigman
  475 So. 2d 1247· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-08-02 ·cited 22×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  Appellants claimed they submitted a cost-saving suggestion to their employer railroad that generated over $2 million in savings, but received only $1,000. They sued for $800,000 in breach of contract damages. The trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, ruling the employee
• Boelens v. Redman Homes
  748 F.2d 1058· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 22×
  Personal injury claims based solely on breach of warranty are not cognizable under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA); such claims are not cognizable under the MMWA unless they involve a violation of specific substantive provisions of the Act, and punitive damages are not reco
• Vicente Acevedo Velez v. Crown Life Ins. Co.
  599 F.2d 471· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 22×
  The court held that attorney's fees sought under a Puerto Rican statute are includable in the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, but interest is not. The court also affirmed the denial of coverage under the group life insurance policy.
• Nat'l Treas. Emps. Union v. Campbell
  589 F.2d 669· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing claims for lack of jurisdiction and that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, specifically 5 U.S.C. § 8912, provides jurisdiction for suits challenging rates negotiated under the Act. It also held that summary judgm
• Captain Douglas Bruce McGAW v. Colonel A. Allen Farrow
  472 F.2d 952· 4th Cir.· 1973-01-15 ·cited 22×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of federal question jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• F & S Constr. Co., Inc. v. Jensen
  337 F.2d 160· 10th Cir.· 1964-09-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that if it is established as a matter of law that a plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount, the court lacks jurisdiction, even if the claim was initially pleaded in good faith.
• Ada Gannett v. William F. King et ux.
  108 So. 2d 299· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-01-21 ·cited 22×
  Ada Gannett appealed the dismissal of her breach of warranty claim against William F. King. The court reversed on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $500, as the plaintiff impr
• Sturgeon v. Great Lakes Steel Corp.
  143 F.2d 819· 6th Cir.· 1944-07-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the claims of individual policyholders for insurance dividends could not be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement in a diversity class action lawsuit.
• Div. 525 v. Gorman
  133 F.2d 273· 8th Cir.· 1943-02-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction and correctly found that the contract had been legally cancelled, affirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit.
• MSP Recovery Claims v. The Hanover Ins. Co.
  995 F.3d 1289· 11th Cir.· 2021-04-30 ·cited 21×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over the cross-appeals challenging remand orders and affirmed the district court's denial of attorney's fees and costs.
• Fowler v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am.
  915 F.2d 616· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-19 ·cited 21×
  The court held that while remand orders are generally unappealable, the assessment of costs associated with a remand can be reviewed for abuse of discretion. The district court abused its discretion by ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs when the defendant imprope
• Cale v. The City OF Covington
  586 F.2d 311· 4th Cir.· 1978-11-03 ·cited 21×
  The court held that there is no implied cause of action for damages against a municipality under the Fourteenth Amendment, even with federal question jurisdiction, for the acts of its employees.
• Sibilia v. Makita Corp.
  674 F. Supp. 2d 1290· M.D. Fla.· 2009-12-09 ·cited 20×
  A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence, and mere speculation based on injury severity or a plaintiff's refusal to stipulate is insufficient.
• Spradley v. DOE
  612 So. 2d 722· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-02-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the county court had jurisdiction over the case based on the amount in controversy and the relief sought, including equitable matters.
• Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alejandro Alfonzo-Larrain R.
  854 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 20×
  The court agrees with the majority's result and much of its reasoning, while also sympathizing with the dissent's concerns about jurisdictional errors.
• Andrews v. Maher
  525 F.2d 113· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims, affirming the dismissal of the action.
• Beacon Constr. Co., Inc. v. Matco Elec. Co., Inc.
  521 F.2d 392· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-13 ·cited 20×
  A federal court may grant declaratory relief to void a mechanic's lien filed in violation of a contractual waiver, and award the bond premium paid to discharge it, even if state law provides alternative procedures.
• Jaroslav Sedivy v. Elliot L. Richardson
  485 F.2d 1115· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-26 ·cited 20×
  The court concurred with the result but expressed concern that the jurisdictional amount requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was not met, suggesting this issue requires further consideration.
• Givens v. W. T. Grant Co.
  457 F.2d 612· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not aggregate to meet the $10,000 jurisdictional amount for diversity jurisdiction, and thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Litvak Meat Co. v. Baker
  446 F.2d 329· 10th Cir.· 1971-07-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Penn Central had sufficient minimum contacts in Colorado for jurisdiction and that the Carmack Amendment does not preempt all common law negligence claims by shippers.
• Giancana v. Marlin W. Johnson
  335 F.2d 366· 7th Cir.· 1964-06-30 ·cited 20×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  The district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to allege or demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded the statutory minimum, and also failed to identify a specific Act of Congress for the civil rights claim.
• Alfonso v. Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth. & Najeeb Halaby
  308 F.2d 724· 5th Cir.· 1962-10-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations of damage did not meet the jurisdictional amount required for federal court, and thus the lower court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co. v. Steinheider
  268 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1959-07-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the value of the right to be free from the defendant's competition exceeded $10,000, thus affirming the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Canadian Indem. Co. & Harry C. Dow v. Republic Indem. Co. of Am.
  222 F.2d 601· 9th Cir.· 1955-03-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellee failed to demonstrate the requisite amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction, even with policy limits stated, as no injury was alleged.
• Giordano v. Radio Corp. of Am.
  183 F.2d 558· 3d Cir.· 1950-07-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish the jurisdictional amount for an individual claim, and the suit could not proceed as a class action.
• Emmons v. Smitt
  149 F.2d 869· 6th Cir.· 1945-06-25 ·cited 20×
  The district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of federal jurisdiction, as the plaintiff failed to establish a federal question or a claim for deprivation of civil rights.
• Home INS. Co. OF NEW York v. Trotter
  130 F.2d 800· 8th Cir.· 1942-09-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action because the value of the insurance contracts in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional amount, and that the judgment must be amended to reflect credits for payments made to the mortgagee
• Andrews v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
  124 F.2d 788· 7th Cir.· 1941-11-15 ·cited 20×
  Individual policyholder claims against a mutual insurance company's surplus funds are several and cannot be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional amount if each claim individually falls below that threshold.
• Wilson v. Sparkman
  17 Fla. 871· Fla.· 1880-06-01 ·cited 20×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed that a county court lacked jurisdiction to render judgment on a note because the total amount in controversy, including accrued interest, exceeded the court's jurisdictional limit of $300. The court held that the amount actually due at the time
• Dassinger v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co.
  505 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-20 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and in granting summary judgment for the defendant.
• Castellano v. Bader Bros. VAN Lines, Inc.
  208 So. 2d 842· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-04-16 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court erred in transferring the case because jurisdiction is determined by the amount claimed in good faith at the commencement of the action, not the amount ultimately recovered.
• Eagle Star Ins. Co. v. Augustin Maltes
  313 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1963-03-01 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the claims of multiple judgment creditors against an insurer cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy when they sue directly on their individual judgments, as they lack a common and undivided interest.
• Burks v. Tex. Co.
  211 F.2d 443· 5th Cir.· 1954-03-31 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for lack of federal jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy, as the plaintiff's good faith assertion of damages, even if potentially subject to defense, was sufficient.
• Minsky's Follies of Fla., Inc. v. Sennes
  206 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1953-08-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a claim for loss of use of premises under an oral lease longer than one year is barred by the Statute of Frauds, but claims for expenses incurred at the defendant's request are not barred and federal jurisdiction is determined by the amount in controversy as a
• Caudell v. Leventis
  43 So.2d 853· Fla.· 1950-01-24 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a Circuit Court cannot transfer a case to a Civil Court of Record if the Circuit Court lacks original jurisdiction due to the amount in controversy being too low. The court quashed the transfer order, stating the proper action was dismissal.
• Nationwide Mut. Co. v. Ft. Myers Total Rehab Ctr., Inc.
  657 F. Supp. 2d 1279· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was met by aggregating claims, and that most of the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss, except for civil conspiracy.
• Eagle v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  769 F.2d 541· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the class action was properly removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, that the minority shareholders were not injured by the refund, and that a pretrial order precluded the assertion of a new damage theory at the summary judgment stage.
• Davis v. Keeto, Inc.
  463 So. 2d 368· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-01-15 ·cited 18×
  In this workers' compensation appeal, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a deputy commissioner's award of attorney's fees, holding that the amount of benefits recovered is not the sole or primary limiting factor in determining reasonable attorney's fees. The court reject
• Local Div. 1285 v. Jackson Transit Auth. & the City of Jackson
  650 F.2d 1379· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-03 ·cited 18×
  The Urban Mass Transportation Act, specifically § 13(c), does not create a private federal right of action for employees to sue municipal transit authorities for breach of contract.
• Verla Loraine Tackett v. Kidder
  616 F.2d 1050· 8th Cir.· 1980-03-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that there was no substantial evidence of fraud to support the jury's verdict, affirming the trial court's grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• White v. Marine Transp. Lines, Inc.
  372 So. 2d 81· Fla.· 1979-06-07 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that while a county court's jurisdiction to hear a case is determined by the plaintiff's good faith demand at the time of filing, the court lacks judicial power to enter a judgment exceeding its jurisdictional limit of $2,500 exclusive of costs and
• Texas Acorn v. Tex. Area 5 Health Sys. Agency, Inc.
  559 F.2d 1019· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and applied an incorrect standard of review. The court also found a lack of jurisdiction over the HSA due to failure to meet the amount-in-controversy requir
• Alvah L. Snow v. Ford Motor Co.
  561 F.2d 787· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the amount in controversy for removal jurisdiction cannot be met by aggregating individual claims, even when injunctive relief is sought, if those claims are separate and distinct.
• Eliseo Garza v. Amador Rodriguez
  559 F.2d 259· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 18×
  A public employee's discharge is not unconstitutional if the protected conduct (filing a lawsuit) played a part but the employer had a legitimate, independent reason for the termination based on the employee's unprotected conduct.
• Den Hartigh v. Latin
  485 F.2d 1068· D.C. Cir.· 1973-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the District Court erred in transferring cases to Superior Court based solely on District of Columbia v. Carter, as federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) may exist for claims of constitutional violations by D.C. officers, and the amount in co