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

• The Albany Welf. Rights Org. DAY Care Ctr., Inc. v. Schreck
  463 F.2d 620· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for relief, stating that plaintiffs had a factual foundation to establish retaliation by defendants.
• Cupo v. Cmty. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF NEW York
  438 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 for claims arising under the National Banking Act, regardless of the amount in controversy.
• Yoder v. Assiniboine AND Sioux Tribes OF the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
  339 F.2d 360· 9th Cir.· 1964-11-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the value of the right to be free from state regulation, not the value of the underlying property or potential royalties, must be used to determine the jurisdictional amount in controversy.
• Kelly v. Greer
  334 F.2d 434· 3d Cir.· 1964-07-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court had the power to vacate its dismissal orders and reinstate the original actions to enforce a settlement agreement, even if it had previously dismissed the cases with prejudice.
• The City OF Lawton v. Chapman
  257 F.2d 601· 10th Cir.· 1958-07-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the jurisdictional amount in controversy because the value of the right to be protected is measured by the loss from compliance, not anticipated profits, and compliance was not impossible.
• Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. NEW CUT Rate Liquors, Inc.
  245 F.2d 453· 7th Cir.· 1957-05-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding it had federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to provide competent proof that the amount in controversy exceeded $3,000.
• Al Friedman v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists
  220 F.2d 808· D.C. Cir.· 1955-02-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's union membership, and the potential loss of employment and benefits stemming from his expulsion, constituted a matter in controversy exceeding $3,000.00, thus establishing federal jurisdiction.
• Anderson v. Burwell Motor Co.
  73 So. 2d 822· Fla.· 1954-07-09 ·cited 18×
  Anderson sued Burwell Motor Co. for conversion of his automobile valued at $2,500. The circuit court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Civil Court of Record had exclusive jurisdiction over cases where the amount in controversy did not exceed $3,000. Anderson appealed
• French Renovating Co. v. RAY Renovating Co.
  170 F.2d 945· 6th Cir.· 1948-12-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the state-law claims for breach of contract and trust when they were joined with federal patent and copyright claims, absent diversity of citizenship or sufficient amount in controversy, and when the claims did not r
• Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Kortz
  151 F.2d 582· 10th Cir.· 1945-10-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court should not have dismissed the declaratory judgment actions, but the decision to entertain them rests within the trial court's discretion.
• Vachon v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co.
  20 F.4th 1343· 11th Cir.· 2021-12-14 ·cited 17×
  The Eleventh Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review a district court's order remanding a case to state court based on an untimely notice of removal, as such orders are barred from appellate review by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
• Devore v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
  658 F. Supp. 2d 1372· M.D. Fla.· 2009-09-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a possibility of a valid claim against the non-diverse defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeded the federal threshold, thus denying remand.
• Columbus Educ. Ass'n v. Columbus City Sch. Dist.: Va. E. Printice
  623 F.2d 1155· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 17×
• Welsh v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y.
  186 F.2d 16· 5th Cir.· 1951-01-17 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a change of domicile to New Mexico, and thus diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
• Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Schantz
  178 F.2d 779· 5th Cir.· 1949-12-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory judgment action concerning insurance policy coverage, as an actual controversy exceeding $3,000 existed.
• Heasley v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  967 F.2d 116· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Heasleys were prevailing parties entitled to attorneys' fees for challenging the negligence and substantial understatement penalties, but not the valuation overstatement or additional interest penalties. The court also affirmed the Tax Court's calculation
• Chabal v. Reagan
  822 F.2d 349· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the non-monetary claims because the district court's jurisdiction was not based, in whole or in part, on the Tucker Act, but remanded for the plaintiff to elect whether to waive monetary claims exceeding $10,000 to allow the
• Shaw v. Gwatney
  795 F.2d 1351· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-27 ·cited 16×
  A district court's jurisdiction under the Tucker Act is determined by the total amount of back pay a plaintiff stands to recover, not just the amount accrued at filing. A governor does not have the power to remove a property and fiscal officer who has been called into federal ser
• Ross v. Inter-Ocean Ins. Co.
  693 F.2d 659· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-18 ·cited 16×
  A defendant may not remove a case to federal court if it knows or should know that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000, even if the plaintiff's complaint requests more.
• Glover v. Johns-Manville Corp.
  662 F.2d 225· 4th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 16×
  The court's prior precedent, Bremen, allows tortfeasors to seek indemnity from the United States despite the exclusive remedy clause of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.
• Licia T. M. Cardinale v. Wash. Tech. Inst.
  500 F.2d 791· D.C. Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim arising under the Constitution to invoke the District Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• Hales v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
  500 F.2d 836· 4th Cir.· 1974-05-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' federal claim under 29 U.S.C. § 308(b) was properly before the court, and that the corporation, not the committee, was the 'administrator' of the profit-sharing plan.
• James v. Lusby
  499 F.2d 488· D.C. Cir.· 1974-04-24 ·cited 16×
  The District Court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the case to the Superior Court because the record did not demonstrate to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold.
• Randall v. Goldmark
  495 F.2d 356· 1st Cir.· 1974-04-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that mortgage payments made by an estranged husband directly to a mortgagee constitute a 'currently available resource' that a state agency can consider when determining AFDC shelter allowances.
• Matthews v. Swift & Co. & Globe Life Ins. Co.
  465 F.2d 814· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in determining the plaintiff's entitlement to a disability pension, as this determination rested solely within the discretion of the Pension Board, and the plaintiff failed to prove bad faith or arbitrary action by the Board. Claims again
• Application of Robert Matherson & the Oak Beach Inn Corp. v. The Long Island State Park Comm'n & the Jones Beach Parkway Auth.
  442 F.2d 566· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-05 ·cited 16×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the Long Island State Park Commission is not an alter ego of the state and thus not immune from suit, but the case must be remanded due to lack of alleged jurisdictional amount in controversy.
• Weddle v. Dir., Patuxent Inst.
  436 F.2d 342· 4th Cir.· 1970-12-30 ·cited 16×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  Jurisdiction for purely property claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires satisfaction of the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, not 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).
• DeVRIES v. Starr
  393 F.2d 9· 10th Cir.· 1968-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to prove damages, as a reasonable basis for estimating damages existed.
• Brough v. Strathmann Supply Co., Inc.
  358 F.2d 374· 3d Cir.· 1966-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the substitution of the plaintiff did not destroy diversity jurisdiction and that the amount in controversy and negligence issues should not have been decided as a matter of law.
• Matthiesen v. Nw. Mut. Ins. Co.
  286 F.2d 775· 5th Cir.· 1961-02-15 ·cited 16×
  A trial court's finding that a plaintiff's assertion of the jurisdictional amount was a colorable invocation for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, meaning not made in good faith, will be affirmed if not clearly erroneous.
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Emmett Horton
  275 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1960-02-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the amount claimed before the Industrial Accident Board, and the employee's counterclaim, established the requisite amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, even if the Board's award was less.
• Branding Iron Club v. Riggs
  207 F.2d 720· 10th Cir.· 1953-10-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint after judgment to conform to the evidence, nor in admitting evidence contrary to a stipulation that did not encompass all facts, nor in refusing to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
• Scottish Union & Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Bejcy
  201 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1953-01-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that special damages for mental anguish and other consequential losses are not recoverable in an ordinary fire insurance policy claim where the insurer denies liability in good faith, absent specific statutory provisions or clear foreseeability of such damages at t
• Matlaw Corp. v. War Damage Corp.
  164 F.2d 281· 7th Cir.· 1947-10-29 ·cited 16×
  Individual claims based on separate insurance policies cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal court, even in a class action, unless the claims are joint or common.
• Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. City OF Excelsior Springs
  123 F.2d 573· 8th Cir.· 1941-11-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court correctly retained jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claim was made in good faith, and the evidence supported the jury's finding of a modified cost-plus contract.
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly
  921 F.2d 1310· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 15×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, their petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition were denied.
• Waadew Aysisayh v. C.W. Ellis
  497 So. 2d 1316· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-11-25 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a claim for damages in a replevin action does not affect the jurisdictional amount determined by the value of the property sought to be replevied.
• Irwin Abraham v. Kirchhoff
  795 F.2d 238· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court used an improper procedure in resolving the 100 named plaintiffs jurisdictional question, that implied warranty claims under Magnuson-Moss are subject to state law privity rules, that express warranties do not cover defects manifesting after
• Eldon Lindsey v. Ala. Tel. Co.
  576 F.2d 593· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-12 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not adequately allege the jurisdictional amount for removal under the diversity statute.
• Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co.
  518 F.2d 1167· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-01 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the complaint did not sufficiently allege a claim for statutory penalties or attorney's fees to meet the $10,000 jurisdictional amount for diversity jurisdiction, despite the ad damnum clause.
• Mass. State Pharm. Ass'n v. Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc.
  431 F.2d 130· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite $10,000 jurisdictional amount, either individually or through aggregation, to support federal jurisdiction.
• Rocco v. Coffey
  163 So. 2d 21· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-04-22 ·cited 15×
  A trial court's sua sponte dismissal of a case for lack of jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy, without a full adjudication, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and is reviewable by certiorari.
• Dupree v. Shekina Dellmar
  323 So. 3d 342· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-06-23 ·cited 14×
  Brian A. Dupree petitioned for a writ of prohibition against a county court that adjudicated claims involving his equitable interest in real property. The court granted the petition, finding that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims involving equitable
• Peebles v. Merrill Lynch
  431 F.3d 1320· 11th Cir.· 2005-12-12 ·cited 14×
  Don Peebles sought to vacate a zero dollar arbitration award against Merrill Lynch, claiming fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and other violations related to technology stock investments that caused him over $1,000,000 in losses. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court
• Kliebert v. The Upjohn Co.
  915 F.2d 142· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the standard for establishing removal jurisdiction should be consistent with the standard for establishing original federal jurisdiction, requiring a showing that the claim is probably in excess of the jurisdictional amount.
• Leininger v. Leininger
  705 F.2d 727· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Ohio alimony judgment should be struck from the Mississippi judgment roll and its execution enjoined until recognized by a Mississippi court, but it should not be declared a nullity. The court also held that Steiner proved a pro tanto resulting trust in on
• Raymond G. Rieser for the Estate and Personal Representative of Rebecca A. Rieser v. Dist. OF Columbia
  580 F.2d 647· D.C. Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 14×
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reinstated a prior panel opinion, modified to strike the jurisdictional section. The en banc court held that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had jurisdiction over local law claims under a provision of the
• Puig v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys.
  574 F.2d 37· 1st Cir.· 1978-04-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim did not meet the $10,000 jurisdictional amount required for diversity jurisdiction, as the proofs showed the damages were not that substantial.
• The Herald Co. v. McNEAL
  553 F.2d 1125· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the District Court properly abstained from deciding claims based on state law that could resolve federal constitutional issues, but should have retained jurisdiction rather than dismissing. Abstention was inappropriate for a claim challenging a state constitut
• Share v. AIR Props. G. Inc.
  538 F.2d 279· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-06 ·cited 14×
  An order denying class certification is not immediately appealable under the 'death knell' doctrine if at least one member of the purported class possesses a viable cause of action if brought individually.