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

• Am. Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. OF Cal.
  538 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-18 ·cited 14×
  A writ of mandamus will not issue to vacate a district court's order transferring a cross-claim to the Court of Claims, as the district court had a rational and substantial legal argument for its jurisdictional decision, and the petitioner bypassed a direct appeal by requesting t
• Ridgely v. Sec'y OF the Dep't OF Health
  475 F.2d 1222· 4th Cir.· 1973-04-03 ·cited 14×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  Judicial review of Medicare entitlement claims under the pre-1972 version of 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff(b) is permitted regardless of the amount in controversy.
• Wood v. Stark Tri-County Bldg. Trades Council
  473 F.2d 272· 6th Cir.· 1973-02-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was not a legal certainty that the plaintiff could not recover more than the jurisdictional amount, and thus the district court had jurisdiction.
• The City OF Boulder v. Snyder
  396 F.2d 853· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-03 ·cited 14×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the trial court erred in not dismissing the action for lack of federal jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy did not meet the statutory requirement.
• S. Ariz. York Refrigeration Co. v. The Bush Mfg. Co.
  331 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could apply to infer negligence in the manufacture of refrigeration coils, and that the 'imminently dangerous' product exception to the privity requirement extends to property damage claims.
• Stewart v. M. H. "Mike" Shanahan
  277 F.2d 233· 8th Cir.· 1960-04-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing count two for lack of jurisdiction, as jurisdiction was established by count one, even if count two alone did not meet the jurisdictional amount.
• Kaufman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  245 F.2d 918· 3d Cir.· 1957-07-03 ·cited 14×
  A stipulation by parties to establish federal jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy is insufficient if the jurisdictional prerequisite is denied and not otherwise proven.
• Am. Fid. & Cas. Co. v. Owensboro Milling Co.
  222 F.2d 109· 6th Cir.· 1955-05-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the entire controversy, as the claims for indemnity and contribution arose from a single cause of action, and jurisdiction is not determined by the potential amount of recovery on one claim.
• Amalgamated Ass'n OF St. v. S. Bus Lines, Inc.
  189 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1951-05-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint did not affirmatively establish a federal question, despite the parties' contractual dispute arising from interstate commerce.
• Miller v. Nat'l City Bank of N.Y.
  166 F.2d 723· 2d Cir.· 1948-03-15 ·cited 14×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  The court held that the state court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds was res judicata as to the claim against Guaranty Trust, and that claims against National City Bank could not be aggregated for jurisdictional amount.
• Hann v. City OF Clinton
  131 F.2d 978· 10th Cir.· 1942-11-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that diversity of citizenship existed and the amount in controversy was sufficient for federal jurisdiction, and that the actions were not barred by limitations or res judicata.
• Robertson v. Argus Hosiery Mills, Inc.
  121 F.2d 285· 6th Cir.· 1941-06-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a suit for back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, even if it includes liquidated damages, arises under a law regulating commerce, thus conferring federal jurisdiction regardless of the amount in controversy.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Transp. Indem. Co.
  795 F.2d 538· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 13×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that a carrier's processing of damage claims under ICC regulations does not create a prima facie case of liability against its insurer, and that certain defenses raised by the insurer were not affirmative defenses and thus not waived.
• Saval v. BL Ltd.
  710 F.2d 1027· 4th Cir.· 1983-06-28 ·cited 13×
  The court held that individual claims could not be aggregated, attorneys' fees could not be included in the amount in controversy, and punitive damages were not available under Maryland law for the alleged conduct, thus affirming the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdict
• Dice v. Cameron
  424 So. 2d 173· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-01-04 ·cited 13×
  A beneficiary under a will appealed an order approving the estate's proposed distribution, and the court required posting of a supersedeas bond equal to the amount in controversy plus 15%. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
• Payne v. Gov't OF the Dist. OF Columbia
  D.D.C.· 1977-06-07 ·cited 13×
  The court, in a special concurrence, notes that the monetary value of the rights allegedly violated may not meet the jurisdictional amount and directs the trial court to consider this and other issues arising from a recent amendment to the jurisdictional statute.
• Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. McINTYRE
  304 F.2d 566· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-20 ·cited 13×
• Grand Rapids Furniture Co. v. Grand Rapids Furniture Co.
  127 F.2d 245· 7th Cir.· 1942-04-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement because they shared a common cause of action and an undivided interest, analogous to a class action.
• Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores A Pequena Escala O Artesanales de Colombia (Anpac) v. DOW Quimica de Colombia S.A.
  988 F.2d 559· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, and thus the case should have been remanded to state court. However, the dismissal of the Colombian subsidiary for lack of personal jurisdiction was af
• John F. "Jack" Walsh v. Ford Motor Co.
  945 F.2d 1188· D.C. Cir.· 1991-10-08 ·cited 12×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  A party who settles and releases all claims against a defendant is disqualified from appealing a denial of class certification, and if no other party is specified in the notice of appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction.
• Farm Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Fudge
  831 F.2d 18· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that dismissal was a proper sanction for repeated failure to comply with discovery orders, and that the client is responsible for counsel's actions. The court also held that the appellant waived any objection to improper removal by failing to object until after jud
• Dozier v. Ford Motor Co.
  702 F.2d 1189· D.C. Cir.· 1983-03-18 ·cited 12×
  A prior dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, specifically for failing to meet the amount in controversy requirement, has res judicata effect and bars a subsequent suit on the same claim.
• Duderwicz v. Sweetwater Sav. Ass'n
  595 F.2d 1008· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-22 ·cited 12×
  A lender's unilateral termination of an escrow arrangement does not purge a loan of its usurious taint if the loan was usurious at its inception.
• Worthams v. Atlanta Life Ins. Co.
  533 F.2d 994· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the libel claim was barred by the statute of limitations, but the district court erred in dismissing the entire action for lack of jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy.
• Savarese v. Edrick Transfer & Storage, Inc.
  513 F.2d 140· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the default judgment was properly entered because the defendant failed to timely answer, waived defenses by not raising them promptly, and did not demonstrate excusable neglect.
• Butler v. Pettigrew
  409 F.2d 1205· 7th Cir.· 1969-04-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to prove the essential element of reliance in their fraud and deceit action, and thus could not recover.
• Gray v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal.
  387 F.2d 935· 3d Cir.· 1968-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish the jurisdictional amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction, as the accrued payments and frivolous punitive damages claim did not meet the threshold.
• Mariana Deutsch and Abraham Deutsch v. Hewes St. Realty Corp.
  359 F.2d 96· 2d Cir.· 1966-03-30 ·cited 12×
  The court remanded the case for further proceedings, with a concurring judge suggesting the trial court might still dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction upon a more complete record.
• Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Lally
  327 F.2d 568· 4th Cir.· 1964-01-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the insurance policy, as amended by endorsements, limited coverage to $10,000 for the accident in question, and the UE-48 endorsement did not provide additional coverage.
• Mrs. Margaret Jackson v. Colonel William A. Kuhn
  254 F.2d 555· 8th Cir.· 1958-04-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to allege facts demonstrating the requisite amount in controversy for federal question jurisdiction.
• Luria Bros. & Co., Inc. v. Rosenfeld
  244 F.2d 192· 9th Cir.· 1957-03-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the order of dismissal was not a final decision and therefore not appealable.
• Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Odell Coker
  219 F.2d 631· 4th Cir.· 1955-02-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the claims of multiple injured parties against an insurer could be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount for a declaratory judgment action, even if individual claims were below the threshold.
• Koster v. Turchi
  173 F.2d 605· 3d Cir.· 1949-02-24 ·cited 12×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as the tenants failed to meet the jurisdictional amount and had not exhausted administrative remedies.
• John B. Kelly, Inc. v. Lehigh NAV. Coal Co., Inc.
  151 F.2d 743· 3d Cir.· 1945-10-04 ·cited 12×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  The court held that the value of the property right being invaded, not the monetary damages already suffered, determines the jurisdictional amount for an injunction against continuing trespass and nuisance.
• Hock v. 250 N. AVE. Corp.
  142 F.2d 435· 2d Cir.· 1944-04-17 ·cited 12×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a tenant's action seeking to enjoin an eviction based on alleged violations of rent regulations, as the Emergency Price Control Act only permits private suits for rent overcharges.
• Gaskill v. Thomson
  119 F.2d 105· 8th Cir.· 1941-04-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the aggregate value of the class's right to perform work, not individual claims, determines the jurisdictional amount for federal court.
• Clarendon Am. Ins. v. Miami River Club, Inc.
  417 F. Supp. 2d 1309· S.D. Fla.· 2006-01-13 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the assault and battery exclusion and the breach of representations and warranties endorsement precluded coverage, and thus Clarendon had no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds.
• Becker v. RE/MAX Horizons Realty, Inc.
  819 So. 2d 887· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-06-12 ·cited 11×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  Becker appeals a summary default judgment for a promissory note debt owed to Re/Max. The court affirmed that circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction because late fees added to the principal amount exceeded the $15,000 county court threshold, but reversed the default judgmen
• Recanzone v. The MAY Co.
  712 So. 2d 474· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-07-01 ·cited 11×
  Circuit court erred in transferring consumer debt collection and unfair trade practice action to county court where equitable relief was sought, as circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction over such actions regardless of monetary amount.
• Kingston Square Tenants Ass'n v. Tuskegee Gardens, Ltd.
  792 F. Supp. 1566· S.D. Fla.· 1992-05-26 ·cited 11×
  The court held that tenants cannot bring an implied cause of action under federal housing statutes for monetary damages and that tort claims for economic losses arising from a contract breach are barred by the economic loss rule.
• Irwin Klepper v. First Am. Bank
  916 F.2d 337· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a prior arbitration award, once satisfied, bars a subsequent claim for the same compensatory damages against another party. However, the court also held that the district court erred in dismissing a claim for incidental damages and attorney's fees for lack of
• S. Records & Tape Serv. v. The Honorable Murray Goldman
  458 So. 2d 325· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-10-02 ·cited 11×
  Prohibition does not lie where the circuit court has been properly invoked under allegations that the amount in controversy exceeds county court jurisdiction and equitable relief is sought, since challenges to circuit court jurisdiction can be adequately addressed through plenary
• LFC Lessors, Inc. v. Pac. Sewer Maint. Corp.
  739 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 11×
  A forum selection clause stating actions must be brought in the 'courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' is interpreted to mean only the state courts, and thus requires dismissal of a federal diversity action.
• Kheel v. The Port OF NEW York Auth.
  457 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the requisite $10,000 in controversy for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• Siegerist v. Blaw-Knox Co.
  414 F.2d 375· 8th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the injunction against trademark infringement and unfair competition but modified the order regarding the destruction of certain documents. The court also affirmed the denial of an accounting.
• Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Simpson
  404 F.2d 511· 7th Cir.· 1968-12-04 ·cited 11×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction if the amount in controversy, determined from the plaintiff's viewpoint and considering only claims against the insured up to the policy limits, does not exceed $10,000, even if a counterclaim exceeds that amount, especially when the defendant c
• Essie H. Jewell v. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co.
  290 F.2d 11· 5th Cir.· 1961-05-03 ·cited 11×
  The court held that claims against separate insurance companies with individual policy limits below the jurisdictional amount cannot be aggregated to establish federal diversity jurisdiction when there is no joint liability.
• Calhoun v. Kentucky-W. Va. GAS Co.
  166 F.2d 530· 6th Cir.· 1948-03-15 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for damages, including personal suffering and inconvenience, were substantial enough to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and the lower court erred in dismissing the case.
• Wells Fargo Bank v. Sawh
  194 So. 3d 475· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-06-01 ·cited 10×
  Wells Fargo Bank appeals from dismissal of a mortgage foreclosure action following a redemption order that allowed Credo LLC to redeem the mortgage for $3,347,233.21. The court reverses, holding that the redemption amount was unliquidated and required an evidentiary hearing with
• Mirras v. Time Ins.
  578 F. Supp. 2d 1351· M.D. Fla.· 2008-09-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that attorney's fees awarded by statute are included in the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction purposes.