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

• Int'l Star Registry v. Omnipoint Mktg., LLC
  510 F. Supp. 2d 1015· S.D. Fla.· 2007-01-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims for fraudulent inducement and tortious interference are barred by the economic loss rule, and the remaining breach of contract claim does not meet the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
• Response Oncology, Inc. v. MetraHealth Ins.
  978 F. Supp. 1052· S.D. Fla.· 1997-07-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff improperly aggregated claims and misjoined defendants, dismissing claims that did not meet the jurisdictional amount or joinder requirements.
• Gafford v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  997 F.2d 150· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-18 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding of federal jurisdiction, holding that the defendant met its burden of proving the amount in controversy and complete diversity.
• Gaus v. Miles, Inc.
  980 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-23 ·cited 10×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000 for removal jurisdiction, thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Isadore Cassuto and Thalia Cassuto v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  936 F.2d 736· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorneys' fees for the 1981 petition and in refusing to recognize 'special factors' for a higher hourly rate, but erred in calculating cost of living adjustments from 1981 instead of 1986.
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Sch. Dist. OF Lancaster v. Lake Asbestos OF Quebec, Ltd.
  921 F.2d 1330· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 10×
  Non-settling defendants lack standing to challenge a settlement agreement if the agreement itself does not preclude their rights to indemnification or contribution, or otherwise affect their legal rights.
• Holley Equip. Co. v. Credit Alliance Corp.
  821 F.2d 1531· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and in granting summary judgment on the innocent misrepresentation claim, but correctly granted summary judgment on the breach of contract and punitive damages fraud clai
• Zacharia v. Harbor Island SPA, Inc.
  684 F.2d 199· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-25 ·cited 10×
  A hotel's failure to strictly comply with statutory requirements, specifically by not providing a receipt for deposited valuables, deprives it of the benefit of the liability limitation. The existence of a valid defense does not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction over the am
• PTS OF Gainesville, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. OF Am.
  334 So. 2d 324· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that attorney's fees expressly promised in a contract are part of the amount in controversy for determining subject matter jurisdiction.
• Schreiber v. Lugar
  518 F.2d 1099· 7th Cir.· 1975-07-14 ·cited 10×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that individual taxpayer claims cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal question jurisdiction, and the civil rights claim was frivolous.
• Garfinkle v. Wells Fargo Bank
  483 F.2d 1074· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 and a substantial federal question is presented, but the court should abstain from deciding the case pending resolution of unsettled state law issues in state
• Maude E. Schlemmer v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. & Cnty. of Los Angeles
  349 F.2d 682· 9th Cir.· 1965-08-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Department of Charities, as a creditor beneficiary, had a superior right to the insurance proceeds over the substituted beneficiary, even though the insured changed beneficiaries without consent.
• Clarke E. Davenport v. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n & Cont'l Cas. Co.
  325 F.2d 785· 9th Cir.· 1963-12-23 ·cited 10×
  A federal court should not dismiss an action for lack of jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy unless it is certain to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount in good faith.
• Darlyne Parmelee and Frank Parmelee v. Ackerman
  252 F.2d 721· 6th Cir.· 1958-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not meet the jurisdictional minimum.
• Gatha Banks Harris v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.
  220 F.2d 734· 5th Cir.· 1955-04-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as the children's interest in support could be in good faith valued above the jurisdictional amount.
• Pearson v. Nat'l Soc. of Pub. Accountants
  200 F.2d 897· 5th Cir.· 1953-01-14 ·cited 10×
  Plaintiffs may aggregate two separate claims to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal court, even if neither claim individually meets the threshold.
• Greider v. Woods
  177 F.2d 1016· 10th Cir.· 1949-11-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Expediter, as an agency of the United States, can bring actions in federal court under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 without a jurisdictional minimum amount, and that landlords cannot use a tenant's breach of lease covenants as a defense against restitu
• Trainor v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
  131 F.2d 895· 7th Cir.· 1942-12-16 ·cited 10×
  For a breach of an insurance policy short of repudiation or abandonment, damages are limited to benefits in default at the commencement of the suit, plus premiums paid and interest.
• Faulk v. Superior Indus. Int'l, Inc.
  851 F. Supp. 457· M.D. Fla.· 1994-05-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the thirty-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) begins upon service of the first defendant in a multi-defendant action, and staggered service or uncertainty regarding insurance coverage do not constitute exceptional circumstances to excuse untimely rem
• Kahal v. J. W. Wilson & Assocs., Inc.
  673 F.2d 547· D.C. Cir.· 1982-03-23 ·cited 9×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  A claim for punitive damages must have a colorable basis in law and fact to satisfy the federal jurisdictional amount requirement when it is the sole basis for jurisdiction.
• Melancon v. Texaco, Inc.
  659 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 9×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that orders denying remand and vacating a joinder order are interlocutory and therefore not appealable.
• Lamb v. Amalgamated Labor Life Ins. Co.
  602 F.2d 155· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-13 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, finding that his civil rights and fraud claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that his breach of contract claim did not meet the jurisdictional amount requirement.
• Henry's Drive-In, Inc. v. Ideal Rock Prods. Co.
  140 So. 2d 137· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-04-24 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a civil court of record lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment exceeding $5,000, including attorney's fees.
• Ridder Bros., Inc. v. Blethen
  142 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1944-04-29 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the value of the matter in controversy for federal jurisdiction is measured from the plaintiff's viewpoint, not the defendant's potential loss.
• Hira A. Ring v. Merchs. Broom Co.
  68 Fla. 515· Fla.· 1914-12-22 ·cited 9×
  Ring executed a promissory note to Merchants Broom Company for $400 with interest and attorney's fees. After a jury verdict for $528, Ring challenged the Circuit Court's jurisdiction, arguing the County Court had exclusive jurisdiction because the demand did not exceed $500. The
• Cooke v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, requiring remand.
• Thompson v. Thompson
  342 So. 3d 818· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-07-06 ·cited 8×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  John and Nanette Thompson appealed a county court judgment in an unlawful detainer action brought by the trustee of a family trust, arguing the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction once they asserted an equitable ownership interest in the property. The Third District C
• Fusco v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC
  806 F. Supp. 2d 1240· M.D. Fla.· 2011-08-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold, and therefore, the case should be remanded.
• La Rocca v. Stahlheber
  676 F. Supp. 2d 1347· S.D. Fla.· 2009-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the removing defendant met its burden to establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Allapattah Servs. v. Exxon Corp.
  362 F.3d 739· 11th Cir.· 2004-03-15 ·cited 8×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The dissenting opinion argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not grant federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over unnamed class members in diversity-based class actions who fail to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The dissent contends that the Suprem
• Martin v. Mentor Corp.
  142 F. Supp. 2d 1346· M.D. Fla.· 2001-05-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that receipt of a settlement proposal via facsimile constituted legally sufficient notice to commence the thirty-day removal period, and the defendant's failure to remove within that period waived the right to removal.
• Shaw v. DOW Brands, Inc.
  994 F.2d 364· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state common law tort claims for failure to warn regarding product labeling and packaging, and that the plaintiff's prior concessions established the necessary amount in controversy for f
• Watson v. Shell OIL Co. & Brown & Root
  979 F.2d 1014· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-07 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's interlocutory orders defining the class and establishing a multi-phase trial plan, finding no error or abuse of discretion in managing the mass-tort litigation.
• In re Shell OIL Co.
  966 F.2d 1130· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it needs the district court to explain its reasons for remanding the case to determine if the remand order is reviewable.
• Sanchez-Arroyo v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  835 F.2d 407· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-21 ·cited 8×
  A legal theory not presented to the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, except in rare circumstances of compelling new theories or gross miscarriage of justice.
• Shaindy Fenton & Shaindy Fenton, Inc. v. Freedman
  748 F.2d 1358· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, that appellants waived objections to deposition testimony by failing to seek a ruling, that the substitution of a corporate co-plaintiff was proper, and that the evidence did not establish an agency relations
• Nat'l Ass'n FOR Mental Health, Inc. v. The Honorable Joseph A. Califano
  717 F.2d 1451· D.C. Cir.· 1983-09-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that beneficiaries of prior litigation who were not parties to a pre-litigation fee agreement cannot be compelled to pay attorney's fees, and that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
• Sol M. Ross v. Barnett
  436 So. 2d 1040· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-08-23 ·cited 8×
• City OF Moore v. Atchison
  699 F.2d 507· 10th Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 8×
  A city cannot challenge a state statute exempting railroads from local zoning ordinances on federal equal protection grounds, nor on state privileges and immunities grounds, and the amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction was met.
• Wiggins v. N. Am. Equitable Life Assurance Co.
  644 F.2d 1014· 4th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy, after excluding the prayer for punitive damages which were not recoverable under Maryland law for a pure breach of contract, did not exceed $10,000.
• McCARTY v. Amoco Pipeline Co.
  595 F.2d 389· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-02 ·cited 8×
  In a removed diversity case seeking injunctive relief, the amount in controversy can be measured by the value to either party, not exclusively the plaintiff's viewpoint, to determine federal jurisdiction.
• Gonzalez v. Young
  560 F.2d 160· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claim, based solely on a conflict between state and federal welfare regulations, did not present a substantial constitutional claim sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) or (4
• Mailloux v. Mailloux
  554 F.2d 976· 9th Cir.· 1977-05-31 ·cited 8×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  The Guam District Court has diversity jurisdiction analogous to federal district courts in the states, based on the Organic Act and the extension of federal privileges and immunities to Guam.
• Black v. Beame
  550 F.2d 815· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that general statements of goals in federal welfare statutes do not create a private cause of action for individual recipients to challenge the cost-effectiveness of state welfare policies.
• Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Salome D. Lopez
  544 F.2d 198· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the value of the insurer's duty to defend its insured, in addition to the policy limits, can be considered to meet the jurisdictional amount for federal court.
• Williams v. Gund
  334 So. 2d 314· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The circuit court lacked jurisdiction over a property possession and damages claim because the complaint did not allege an amount in controversy exceeding $2,500, and a 1974 statutory amendment transferred such jurisdiction to county court. The appellate court reversed and remand
• Enders v. Am. Patent Search Co.
  535 F.2d 1085· 9th Cir.· 1976-02-25 ·cited 8×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that 35 U.S.C. § 33 is not an Act of Congress 'relating to patents' for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1338 jurisdiction. Therefore, federal jurisdiction for claims implied from § 33 requires meeting the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• Molokai Homesteaders Coop. Ass'n & Life of the Land v. Rogers B. Morton
  506 F.2d 572· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Board of Land and Natural Resources had the authority to enter into a contract for the rental of space in the Molokai Irrigation System for non-irrigation purposes, and that federal statutes and NEPA did not require further federal approval or an environme
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Am. Cas. Co.
  433 F.2d 1007· 8th Cir.· 1970-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment, arguing that the majority's interpretation of insurance policies unfairly relieves one insurer of its contractual obligations.
• Euge v. Trantina
  422 F.2d 1070· 8th Cir.· 1970-03-11 ·cited 8×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction.