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

• Seafoam, Inc. v. Barrier Sys., Inc.
  830 F.2d 62· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on prescription and in dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdictional amount, reversing both decisions.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. SUN Island CAR Rentals
  819 F.2d 430· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and correctly interpreted the statute requiring mailed notice of parking tickets and liens to the registered owner.
• Leonard v. Kern
  651 F. Supp. 263· S.D. Fla.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petition for removal was properly denied because the defendant failed to establish diversity jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy was insufficient and a defendant was a citizen of the forum state, and not all defendants joined the petition.
• In re Evans
  801 F.2d 703· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-23 ·cited 4×
  An attorney's unsubstantiated accusations of bias and incompetence against a magistrate, made in writing and repeated despite affirmation of the magistrate's decision, constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and warrant disbarment.
• Klaver v. Rosebury Albert Mander, III
  468 So. 2d 261· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-02-22 ·cited 4×·via Jurisdictional Amount In Controversy
  Florida appellate court affirmed the circuit court's transfer of an incarcerated plaintiff's civil action to county court, holding that the plaintiff's due process rights were not violated despite his absence from the motion to dismiss hearing.
• Kan. City Terminal Ry. Co. v. Jordon Mfg. Co.
  750 F.2d 551· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 4×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  A suit by a railroad to recover unpaid freight charges arises under the Interstate Commerce Act and is not subject to the $10,000 amount in controversy requirement added to 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) by the 1978 amendment.
• Whitley v. Phil-Nick's, Inc.
  451 So. 2d 925· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-06-01 ·cited 4×
  A plaintiff's good faith claim for damages, even if speculative, is sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction, and the trial court cannot dismiss based on its own estimate of recoverable damages.
• Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona
  729 F.2d 831· D.C. Cir.· 1984-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court vacated the judgment and remanded for a determination of whether the plaintiff's claim met the jurisdictional amount, as aggregation of claims from a law firm might be improper.
• Lottie G. Martin v. Gibson
  723 F.2d 989· D.C. Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the personal injury lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as it could not be determined to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy did not exceed $10,000.
• Lopez v. Arraras
  606 F.2d 347· 1st Cir.· 1979-10-10 ·cited 4×·via Amount In Controversy Requirement
  The court held that the case must be remanded because of serious doubts concerning the district court's jurisdiction and because HUD is a necessary party for proper resolution.
• Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Lantz McCLAIN
  603 F.2d 821· 10th Cir.· 1979-08-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction purposes in a declaratory judgment action by an insurer exceeds $10,000, and that the household exclusion clause in the policy relieved the insurer of liability.
• Smith v. Washington
  593 F.2d 1097· D.C. Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the record did not permit a finding to a legal certainty that the jurisdictional amount was not satisfied, thus affirming the result.
• Tolefree v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
  571 F.2d 1088· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an order remanding a case to state court is not appealable to the circuit court.
• Garris v. Schwartz
  551 F.2d 156· 7th Cir.· 1977-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that damages for emotional distress and attorneys' fees are not recoverable under Illinois law for the claims presented, thus the amount in controversy requirement was not met.
• Inez L. Rubin v. Caspar Weinberger
  524 F.2d 497· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-21 ·cited 4×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction over a Medicare benefits claim where the amount in controversy was less than $1,000, as amended by Congress.
• Ellis P. Block v. Dist. of Columbia
  492 F.2d 646· D.C. Cir.· 1974-01-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court abused its discretion by certifying the case to the Superior Court without sufficient justification or stated reasons, particularly when the record did not clearly establish that the amount in controversy was less than $50,000.
• Sanders v. Hiser
  479 F.2d 71· 8th Cir.· 1973-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claim was colorable for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, as the proofs demonstrated to a legal certainty that they were never entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount.
• Miami Beach Yacht Corp. v. Ferro Corp.
  461 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amount in controversy is determined by the plaintiff's good faith claim, not the ultimate recovery, and the overhead element was a good faith dispute.
• Brainin v. Melikian
  396 F.2d 153· 3d Cir.· 1968-05-03 ·cited 4×
• Seguros Tepeyac, S.A. v. Maynard Bostrom and James L. Jernigan
  360 F.2d 154· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-09 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, affirming its prior decision and denying requests for declaratory judgment and dismissal based on jurisdictional amount.
• Robert v. Rafter
  355 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1966-01-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $10,000 jurisdictional minimum, exclusive of interest and costs.
• A. C. McKOY, Inc. v. Schonwald
  341 F.2d 737· 10th Cir.· 1965-02-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the action for insufficiency of the amount in controversy, thus affirming the dismissal without reaching the merits.
• Giancana v. Hoover
  322 F.2d 789· 7th Cir.· 1963-07-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the amended complaint failed to allege the requisite amount in controversy and did not rely on any applicable federal statutes.
• Janette Heisler and Helen Chase v. Parsons
  312 F.2d 172· 7th Cir.· 1962-12-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court has jurisdiction to determine the ownership of union dues checked off after a union split, even though the National Mediation Board has exclusive jurisdiction over representation disputes.
• Am. Universal Ins. Co. v. Kermit A. Kruse & First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Helena
  306 F.2d 661· 9th Cir.· 1962-08-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the insurer was bound by oral insurance contracts created through an agent with ostensible authority, and that the typed provisions of the policy controlled over printed ones regarding deductibles.
• McALEER v. McNALLY Pittsburg MFG. Corp.
  307 F.2d 220· 3d Cir.· 1962-07-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for damages, including potential loss from life insurance, was made in good faith and exceeded the jurisdictional minimum, and that mitigation of damages was irrelevant to the affirmative claim for salary.
• Waller v. Prof'l Ins. Corp.
  296 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1961-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the value of the insurance policy and the loan note, not just the disputed interest amount, determines the amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction.
• Commonwealth Of Mass. v. United States
  261 F.2d 449· 1st Cir.· 1958-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no petition for allowance of appeal was filed, and the amount in controversy was less than $500.
• Range OIL Supply Co. v. Chicago
  248 F.2d 477· 8th Cir.· 1957-10-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appeal from the Railroad Commission's order constituted a civil action removable to federal court, and that the Commission's finding that the property was not being used for a public purpose was supported by the evidence.
• Myron Herrick v. Sayler
  245 F.2d 171· 7th Cir.· 1957-05-02 ·cited 4×
• Whittemore v. Farrington
  234 F.2d 221· 9th Cir.· 1956-06-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because no federal question was properly raised in the lower courts and the value in controversy did not exceed $5,000.
• City of Memphis v. Ingram
  195 F.2d 338· 8th Cir.· 1952-04-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction was sufficiently alleged and evidenced, and the suit was not an impermissible collateral attack on a state court order.
• Seslar v. Union Local 901, Inc.
  186 F.2d 403· 7th Cir.· 1951-01-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a single plaintiff suing in an individual capacity cannot aggregate the value of a common and undivided interest in property with numerous other members of a class to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
• Fennell v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  177 F.2d 737· 5th Cir.· 1949-11-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was lacking because the amount in controversy did not exceed $3,000, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Greenfield
  154 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1946-04-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the present controversy only involves current disability payments and waivable premiums, not the entire disability insurance coverage.
• Fechheimer Bros. Co. v. Barnwasser
  146 F.2d 974· 6th Cir.· 1945-01-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that individual claims against numerous defendants cannot be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional amount requirement in diversity cases.
• First English Lutheran Church of Okla. City v. Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Kansas and Adjacent States
  135 F.2d 701· 10th Cir.· 1943-05-12 ·cited 4×
  A civil court cannot exercise equitable jurisdiction to protect a property right if the plaintiff has no legal or beneficial interest in that property.
• Pierce v. Wagner
  134 F.2d 958· 9th Cir.· 1943-03-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently stated claims for breach of contract and negligence, and that the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional threshold.
• Cahill v. Hovenden
  132 F.2d 422· 10th Cir.· 1942-12-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper and the amount in controversy requirement was met, affirming the judgments.
• Ladd v. Jones
  2021 WL 3686276· N.D. Fla.· 2025-04-25 ·cited 3×
  The court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim, requiring dismissal.
• Casiano v. Walmart Stores E., LP
  2022 WL 3572413· M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-04 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the case was timely because the plaintiff's discovery response did not unequivocally establish the amount in controversy until December 6, 2023.
• Traub Rodite, LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  2006 WL 2864313· M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to establish federal diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000, considering the deductible and lack of sufficient evidence of attorney's fees.
• Corvalan v. Cook Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-07-06 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to sufficiently allege diversity jurisdiction because it did not state the citizenship of all members of the defendant limited liability company.
• Exquisite Carpet & Interiors, Inc. v. Manual Martinez and Leah Martinez
  353 So. 3d 683· Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-12-21 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court reversed a county court judgment because it exceeded the court's jurisdictional limit. The court held that a judgment exceeding this limit is void and must be vacated, with instructions to transfer the case to the appropriate court if the damages exceed the co
• Conner v. Moran
  278 So. 3d 790· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-08-09 ·cited 3×
  Appellant challenged the circuit court's denial of her petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel a county court judge to grant her jury trial request in a small claims case. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's denial, holding that mandamus was not the appropria
• Wright Transp., Inc. v. Pilot Corp.
  841 F.3d 1266· 11th Cir.· 2016-11-22 ·cited 3×
  The Court held that federal courts retain original subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) over state-law claims even after the class claims are dismissed, provided the claims were properly pleaded under CAFA at the time of filing. Jurisdictional fa
• Ponce v. Fontainebleau Resorts, LLC
  653 F. Supp. 2d 1297· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to prove the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and therefore, the case must be remanded to state court.
• Cooper v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  586 F. Supp. 2d 1312· M.D. Fla.· 2008-08-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that removal of the case as a 'mass action' under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) was proper, and subsequent severance of claims does not divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Howard v. Globe Life Ins.
  973 F. Supp. 1412· N.D. Fla.· 1996-12-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not be aggregated to meet the $50,000 amount in controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction, and thus the cases must be remanded to state court.
• Viacom, Inc. v. Zebe
  882 F. Supp. 1063· S.D. Fla.· 1995-03-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendants' notice of removal was untimely because the initial complaint stated a removable case, and therefore the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.