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

• Richardson v. Sokol
  409 F.2d 3· 3d Cir.· 1969-04-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint failed to affirmatively allege the requisite $10,000 amount in controversy for federal question jurisdiction.
• Sawyer v. Davis
  408 F.2d 358· 8th Cir.· 1969-03-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the jurisdictional amount required for federal court, necessitating dismissal.
• Wood v. Citronelle-Mobile Gathering Sys. Co., Ltd.
  362 F.2d 354· 5th Cir.· 1966-06-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the pendency of an interpleader action in state court does not require or permit dismissal of a federal court complaint for conversion and money had and received.
• Bishop Clarkson Mem'l Hosp. v. Reserve Life Ins. Co.
  350 F.2d 1006· 8th Cir.· 1965-09-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an insurer, with patient authorization and a legitimate business need, has a right to inspect quasi-public hospital records to determine claim liability, and that the jurisdictional amount was met.
• Oikarinen v. Alexian Bros.
  342 F.2d 155· 3d Cir.· 1965-03-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the motion to add a party and affirmed the summary judgment for the defendant in the first suit.
• Hart v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  304 F.2d 572· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-20 ·cited 6×
• The Seven-Up Co. v. Blue Note, Inc.
  260 F.2d 584· 7th Cir.· 1958-10-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish federal jurisdiction because the value of the goodwill did not meet the amount in controversy requirement.
• Columbia Pictures Corp. v. Grengs
  257 F.2d 45· 7th Cir.· 1958-06-23 ·cited 6×
• Essie Turner Melton v. Cap. Transit Co.
  253 F.2d 42· D.C. Cir.· 1958-02-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a District Court's order certifying a personal injury suit to Municipal Court, based on old medical reports, does not preclude the plaintiff from offering proof of damages exceeding the Municipal Court's usual limit.
• The Century Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Mooney
  241 F.2d 910· 10th Cir.· 1957-02-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that separate insurance policy claims cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement when jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.
• Virginia L. Looney et vir v. Cap. Nat'l Bank OF Austin
  235 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1956-06-30 ·cited 6×
• United Elec. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  231 F.2d 259· D.C. Cir.· 1956-03-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over claims alleging unfair labor practices and breach of a collective bargaining contract, and that an individual employee's claim did not meet the jurisdictional amount for the district court.
• Currie v. Flack
  190 F.2d 549· 1st Cir.· 1951-06-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 does not grant federal district courts jurisdiction over tenant suits for damages unless the amount in controversy exceeds $3,000.
• Priest v. Chicago
  189 F.2d 813· 8th Cir.· 1951-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred by dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction without taking evidence to determine the factual basis of the claim.
• Coskery v. Roberts & Mander Corp.
  189 F.2d 234· 3d Cir.· 1951-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order denying a petition to vacate an equity receivership is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(2), absent exceptional circumstances not present here. The court also found that the district court had jurisdiction over the underlyin
• Norwood Lumber Corp. v. McKEAN
  153 F.2d 753· 3d Cir.· 1946-02-05 ·cited 6×
  A plaintiff in a diversity case need not prove damages equal to the jurisdictional amount to maintain federal jurisdiction, and the trial court erred in excluding evidence relevant to the plaintiff's damages for breach of contract.
• Mercado Riera v. Mercado Riera
  152 F.2d 86· 1st Cir.· 1945-11-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico had jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari to review district court orders, even if those orders involved substantive law, and that its determination of local law regarding the expiration of an executorship was not patently
• McLEAN v. York Oil Field Supply Co., Inc.
  138 F.2d 804· 5th Cir.· 1943-11-29 ·cited 6×
  A foreign corporation's failure to obtain a business permit in Texas does not render its contracts void or prevent it from suing in federal court, provided the amount in controversy is met in good faith.
• Corcoran v. Royal Dev. Co.
  121 F.2d 957· 2d Cir.· 1941-07-26 ·cited 6×
  The amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction in a creditor's action is the value of the plaintiff's debt, not the total value of the assets to be distributed.
• Sharp v. Barnhart
  117 F.2d 604· 7th Cir.· 1941-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the suits for want of jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was less than $3,000 and the Federal Motor Carrier Act did not apply to grant jurisdiction.
• Carroll v. Somervell
  116 F.2d 918· 2d Cir.· 1941-01-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the value of the controversy did not exceed $3,000, thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Briggs v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  2023 WL 11841026· M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the requisite amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, warranting remand to state court.
• Robert Clyde & Eve Despard v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co.
  2023 WL 11841026· M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant insurance company sufficiently demonstrated diversity jurisdiction and the amount in controversy, thus denying the plaintiffs' motion to remand.
• Kohrig v. Pavilion at Healthpark LLC
  2017 WL 9887861· M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction, necessitating remand.
• Crawford v. Rodriguez de Hernandez
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold.
• Funkhouser v. Stancil
  2023 WL 2413816· M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to remand is denied and the defendant's motion to dismiss the adjuster is granted because the plaintiff failed to comply with local rules and the adjuster is not a proper defendant in a bad faith claim.
• N. Am. Capacity Ins. Co. v. C.H.
  173 So. 3d 1075· Fla. 2d DCA· 2015-08-07 ·cited 5×
  North American Capacity Insurance Company appeals a circuit court judgment finding it had a duty to pay $50,000 in policy limits to cover a child abuse victim's claim against its insured daycare operators. The court affirms, holding that the scope of review in a coverage appeal d
• Bogdanoff v. Broken Sound Club, Inc.
  154 So. 3d 410· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-12-03 ·cited 5×
  Robert Bogdanoff appeals a summary judgment against him in a case brought by Broken Sound Club to recover delinquent membership dues and fees. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment and the transfer of the case from county court to circuit court,
• Pease v. Medtronic, Inc.
  6 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 1998-05-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely and proper because the motion to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages made the case removable, and the defendant filed its notice of removal within thirty days of that motion. The court also fou
• The N. Tr. Co. v. Bunge Corp.
  899 F.2d 591· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that federal diversity jurisdiction was not satisfied because the citizenship of the individual sellers, not their representative, must be considered, and not all sellers met the complete diversity and amount in controversy requirements.
• Denton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  733 F. Supp. 340· M.D. Fla.· 1990-03-29 ·cited 5×
  A petition for removal that fails to state the amount in controversy or the defendant corporation's principal place of business contains missing allegations, not imperfect ones, and thus cannot be amended after the thirty-day statutory period has expired.
• Burns v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  820 F.2d 246· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege the requisite amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, and the claims of the proposed class could not be aggregated.
• Manze v. State Farm Ins. Co. Appeal of Manze
  817 F.2d 1062· 3d Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 5×
  A plaintiff's timely notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) precludes the court from subsequently dismissing the action with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), and an order appointing an arbitrator is final and appealable if it grants full relief.
• Bloom v. Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry
  755 F.2d 356· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 5×
  The district court lacked the statutory authority to remand the case to a New Jersey state court, and such an order is reviewable by writ of mandamus.
• Farmers Elevator Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jewett
  394 F.2d 896· 10th Cir.· 1968-05-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that scale ticket holders are entitled to recovery on the warehouseman's bond, as the warehouseman's failure to issue proper receipts constituted a violation of his obligations under the United States Warehouse Act.
• Regan v. Marshall
  309 F.2d 677· 1st Cir.· 1962-11-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that interest, regardless of its source, is excluded when calculating the jurisdictional amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• The Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Rodgers
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The Court held that a plaintiff in a statutory interpleader action must deposit the disputed funds or post a bond to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
• Gerald v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  2020 WL 6036882· M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-28 ·cited 4×
  Removal was timely because the thirty-day clock was triggered by plaintiff's initial disclosures, not by presuit correspondence.
• Insurcomm, Inc. v. TAD Recovery Servs., LLC
  2021 WL 3493164· M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-26 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the motion for default judgment because subject-matter jurisdiction was not adequately established regarding complete diversity and the amount in controversy.
• Williams v. LM Gen. Ins. Co.
  129 La. 983· M.D. Fla.· 2019-07-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amount in controversy was facially apparent from the complaint, satisfying the jurisdictional requirement for removal, and thus denied the motion to remand.
• Reid v. Daley
  276 So. 3d 878· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-05-06 ·cited 4×
  A prisoner sued his postconviction attorney for fraud and breach of contract, seeking $4,500 in restitution plus $25,000 for emotional distress. The circuit court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The a
• Payne v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2016-01-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, and the plaintiff's negligence claim does not "arise under" Florida's Workers' Compensation Law for purposes of non-removability.
• Bechtelheimer v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc.
  755 F. Supp. 2d 1211· M.D. Fla.· 2010-12-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the removal was timely and not waived, and a potential future joinder of a non-diverse defendant does not warrant remand at this time.
• Sibilia v. Makita Corp.
  782 F. Supp. 2d 1329· M.D. Fla.· 2010-10-28 ·cited 4×
  A second removal is permissible if based on a different factual basis than the first, such as a subsequent discovery response establishing the amount in controversy.
• Amendment to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar
  875 So. 2d 448· Fla.· 2004-05-20 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, addressing numerous procedural and substantive changes to disciplinary rules, fee regulations, trust accounts, advertising standards, and specialized practice certifications. The amendments refl
• Est. of Ayers Ex rel. Strugnell v. Beaver
  48 F. Supp. 2d 1335· M.D. Fla.· 1999-05-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked federal jurisdiction because the Medicare and Medicaid Acts do not provide a private right of action and the non-diverse defendant was not fraudulently joined.
• Cnty. Collection Servs., Inc. v. Allen
  650 So. 2d 650· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-02-03 ·cited 4×
  County Collection Services sued Leonard Allen to foreclose on a lien for code violations. The trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the amount in controversy fell within county court jurisdiction limits. The appellate court reversed, holding that
• K Mart Corp. v. Concepcion Fernandez
  623 So. 2d 846· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-09-10 ·cited 4×
  K Mart sought a writ of certiorari to review a discovery order denying its motion to compel responses to a request for admissions regarding the amount of damages claimed. The court denied the petition, finding that while the circuit court's reasoning was technically erroneous, K
• Burke Co. v. Hilton Dev. Co.
  802 F. Supp. 434· N.D. Fla.· 1992-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a creditor's acceptance and negotiation of a check tendered as full satisfaction of a disputed claim, even with a modified endorsement, constitutes an accord and satisfaction under Florida contract law, barring further claims.
• Alcide Foret and Bobby J. Dantin v. S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co.
  918 F.2d 534· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised federal jurisdiction and granted summary judgment based on res judicata, affirming the decision.