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

• Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Mitchell Enters., Inc.
  417 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-07 ·cited 8×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdictional amount, as the availability of a statute of limitations defense does not, to a legal certainty, preclude recovery of the jurisdictional amount.
• Wood v. Citronelle-Mobile Gathering Sys. Co., Ltd.
  409 F.2d 367· 5th Cir.· 1968-12-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $10,000, as punitive damages were not recoverable under either of the plaintiff's theories.
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Dep't of Highways
  379 F.2d 673· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy, as the good faith allegation of the jurisdictional amount should not be dismissed unless recovery is legally certain to be less than the required amoun
• Emland Builders, Inc. v. Barney T. Shea
  359 F.2d 927· 10th Cir.· 1966-05-02 ·cited 8×
  A plaintiff's good faith allegation of the jurisdictional amount is sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction, even if the ultimate recovery is less than that amount, provided there was no legal certainty that the plaintiff could not recover the amount claimed at the time of f
• Giancana v. Marlin W. Johnson
  335 F.2d 372· 7th Cir.· 1964-06-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Department of Justice order No. 260-62 did not protect agent Johnson from answering questions about a telegram he personally received.
• John M. Peters Constr. Co. v. Marmar Corp.
  329 F.2d 421· 6th Cir.· 1964-03-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to cure defective allegations of jurisdiction.
• Joseph E. Bennett Co., Inc. v. Trio Indus., Inc.
  306 F.2d 546· 1st Cir.· 1962-08-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the judgment entered for the plaintiff was a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, despite an unadjudicated counterclaim, because all claims were effectively decided.
• Mrs. Virginia Kelly v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  294 F.2d 400· 5th Cir.· 1961-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for wrongful death could be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount because they sought to enforce a single right of action.
• Panama Transp. Co. v. Greenberg
  290 F.2d 125· 1st Cir.· 1961-05-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff attorney's own testimony established that the amount in controversy was less than the jurisdictional minimum, requiring dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction.
• Brown v. Keller
  274 F.2d 779· 6th Cir.· 1960-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that adding a policyholder as a party plaintiff cured any defect in the original plaintiffs' capacity to sue and did not destroy diversity jurisdiction.
• Alberty v. W. Sur. Co.
  249 F.2d 537· 10th Cir.· 1957-11-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's two claims against the surety could be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction, and that alleged pleading defects were either cured by other allegations or were correctable by amendment.
• Colonial OIL Co. v. Vining
  237 F.2d 913· 5th Cir.· 1956-11-06 ·cited 8×
  A good faith allegation of the amount in controversy is sufficient to confer jurisdiction unless it appears to a legal certainty that less than the jurisdictional amount is involved.
• Crescent Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Rotherum
  218 F.2d 638· 5th Cir.· 1955-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that attorney's fees are recoverable under Article 2226 and must be included in the amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction.
• Journal Pub. Co. v. Gen. Cas. Co.
  210 F.2d 202· 9th Cir.· 1954-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the insurer's duty to defend and its duty to pay are distinct obligations, and the duty to pay is not solely determined by the allegations in the injured party's complaint but by the actual facts of the case.
• M & M Transp. Co. v. City of N.Y.
  186 F.2d 157· 2d Cir.· 1950-12-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $3,000, as the value of future, contingent taxes could not be reliably calculated.
• Ebensberger v. Sinclair Ref. Co.
  165 F.2d 803· 5th Cir.· 1948-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the amount in controversy for specific performance is the property's value, and a married woman's coverture defense does not bar enforcement of a lease option against her when she assumes the obligations with notice.
• Jones v. Drewry's
  149 F.2d 250· 7th Cir.· 1945-05-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
• Hackshaw v. Ferguson Enters., LLC
  908 F. Supp. 2d 1285· S.D. Fla.· 2020-03-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendant's argument of fraudulent joinder failed because the plaintiff presented a possibility of stating a claim against the non-diverse defendant, thus defeating complete diversity.
• Sunrise Mills (MLP) Ltd. P'ship v. Adams
  688 So. 2d 464· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-03-05 ·cited 7×
  In this personal injury case, the court granted certiorari to review a trial court's order sustaining plaintiff's objection to a request for admission regarding the amount of damages sought. The court held that defendant had a statutory right to discovery concerning the amount in
• Angus v. Shiley Inc.
  989 F.2d 142· 3d Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction and correctly granted summary judgment, as the plaintiff failed to state a claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law.
• Sullivan v. Nova Univ.
  613 So. 2d 597· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-02-12 ·cited 7×
  Sullivan appeals a summary judgment for Nova University on two promissory notes allegedly totaling over $9,300. The appellate court reverses, finding the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the actual principal amount of the loans ($3,700) fell below the $5,0
• Metro. Drywall Sys., Inc. v. Dudley
  472 So. 2d 1345· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-07-24 ·cited 7×
  Metropolitan Drywall Systems, Inc. appealed a default judgment and the denial of its motion to set aside the default, with the appellate court raising sua sponte the issue of the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction based on the amended complaint.
• Lockwood Corp. v. Black
  669 F.2d 324· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction despite improper removal and that Nebraska law properly applied to the contract dispute.
• Edgar v. Econ. Opportunity Legal Servs. Program, Inc.
  230 So. 2d 487· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-01-13 ·cited 7×
  A circuit court cannot transfer a count with an insufficient amount in controversy to a lower court if another count in the same complaint invokes the circuit court's jurisdiction.
• In re Sawyer
  256 F.2d 553· 9th Cir.· 1956-05-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain a motion for a stay pending appeal when a substantial constitutional question is raised regarding the infringement of rights.
• Chicago v. Stude
  204 F.2d 954· 8th Cir.· 1953-06-17 ·cited 7×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the filing of a complaint alleging diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy properly invoked the original jurisdiction of the federal district court, notwithstanding a prior, procedurally flawed attempt to appeal a state administrative
• Nieter v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C.
  2018 WL 3761045· M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-20 ·cited 6×
  A proposal for settlement, standing alone, does not establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Cap. One, N.A. v. Bloom
  2024 WL 1191819· M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-25 ·cited 6×
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand because the defendant failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction based on either diversity or federal question.
• Bell v. Ace Ins. Co. of the Midwest
  2011 WL 4543905· M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a motion to reconsider a non-final order requires extraordinary circumstances and cannot be used to present new arguments or evidence not previously raised. The court also held that a state civil cover sheet, not served on the defendant and designated for data
• Bankston v. Ill. Nat'l Ins.
  443 F. Supp. 2d 1380· M.D. Fla.· 2006-05-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the action was untimely because the defendant could have and should have ascertained the removability of the case within the thirty-day statutory period.
• Fedan Corp. v. Milva Reina
  695 So. 2d 1282· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-06-25 ·cited 6×
  Fedan Corporation and Henry Echeverria appealed a trial court order denying their motion to vacate a $250,000 judgment entered against them in a damages suit. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's com
• Parker W. Packard v. Provident Nat'l Bank
  994 F.2d 1039· 3d Cir.· 1993-05-18 ·cited 6×
  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it was evident to a legal certainty that the requisite amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction was never recoverable. The
• Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc.
  969 F.2d 160· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant's notice of removal is timely if filed within thirty days of receiving an 'other paper' that reveals removability, provided that 'other paper' is received after the initial pleading.
• In re Shell OIL Co.
  970 F.2d 355· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·cited 6×
  A post-removal affidavit or stipulation limiting recovery does not authorize remand if the complaint itself established federal jurisdiction.
• Gerlinde G. Ryan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  934 F.2d 276· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of an insurance policy's allocation of benefits between personal injury protection and medical payments coverage.
• Jasper v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  732 F. Supp. 104· M.D. Fla.· 1990-03-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the removal petition was procedurally defective for failing to allege the amount in controversy and for lack of consent from all served defendants.
• Hooper v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  785 F.2d 1228· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that notices of appeal filed before the district court ruled on a motion for attorney's fees were premature and thus a nullity, depriving the court of appellate jurisdiction.
• Curtis v. Sears
  754 F.2d 781· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal court has ancillary jurisdiction over an insurer's intervention of right even after the main claim settles, provided minimal legal issues remain and retaining jurisdiction is practical.
• Jadair, Inc. v. The Walt Keeler Co., Inc.
  679 F.2d 131· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, holding that removal was proper due to sufficient amount in controversy and that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
• Love v. Budai
  665 F.2d 1060· D.C. Cir.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 6×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  Summary judgment for officers Budai, Robertson, and Finkelberg is reversed because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding their conduct and the jurisdictional amount for Finkelberg's claim.
• Iowa Pub. Serv. Co. v. Med. BOW Coal Co.
  556 F.2d 400· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissed plaintiffs were real parties in interest, meaning there was no complete diversity of citizenship, and the case should have been remanded to state court.
• Albright v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  531 F.2d 132· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 6×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  A federal court's jurisdiction upon removal is determined by the pleadings at the time of removal, and subsequent events reducing the amount in controversy do not divest jurisdiction, even if the same judge previously found the claim insufficient.
• Fred Harvey, Inc. v. Mooney
  526 F.2d 608· 7th Cir.· 1975-11-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that denying a motion to intervene was an abuse of discretion because the movant's position was not frivolous and their interests were not adequately represented by existing parties.
• Moore v. Betit
  511 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 6×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction based on speculative damages, and that the case should be remanded for further consideration of the amount in controversy, particularly regarding the 'trust fund' theory.
• Michie v. Great Lakes Steel Division
  495 F.2d 213· 6th Cir.· 1974-04-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that under Michigan law, multiple independent polluters whose actions cause a single, indivisible injury may be held jointly and severally liable, and that individual claims exceeding $10,000 satisfy diversity jurisdiction requirements.
• Montecatini Edison v. Ziegler
  486 F.2d 1279· D.C. Cir.· 1973-10-05 ·cited 6×
  Permissive counterclaims are cognizable in actions under 35 U.S.C. § 146, and a party commencing suit in the District of Columbia is considered 'found within the District' for jurisdictional purposes.
• Columbus and Mae Frances Crenshaw v. Great Cent. Ins. Co.
  482 F.2d 1255· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing Count I as barred by the statute of limitations; instead, Count I should have been remanded to state court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Gibson v. Jeffers
  478 F.2d 216· 10th Cir.· 1973-05-03 ·cited 6×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege facts to establish the jurisdictional amount required for federal court jurisdiction, even after multiple amendments.
• Mother v. Silvercup Bakers, Inc.
  434 F.2d 310· 7th Cir.· 1970-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's good faith claim, including potential punitive damages, met the jurisdictional amount requirement, and the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
• Rapoport v. Rapoport
  416 F.2d 41· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-20 ·cited 6×