Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332)

661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Kruso v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp.
  872 F.2d 1416· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 422×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), applies retroactively to disregard Doe defendants for removal purposes, and that the plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants failed to establish fraudul
• Neill G. Wade v. Clower
  94 Fla. 817· Fla.· 1927-10-31 ·cited 247×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a state court's award of attorney's fees and costs in a partnership accounting suit, holding that a subsequent federal court judgment settling the partnership accounting did not bar the state court from adjudicating fees and costs that were not
• In re Josephson
  218 F.2d 174· 1st Cir.· 1954-12-23 ·cited 199×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that it has the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to review a district court's order transferring a case to another district, in aid of its potential appellate jurisdiction, but will not routinely review such orders for abuse of discretion.
• Krasnov v. Dinan
  465 F.2d 1298· 3d Cir.· 1972-09-07 ·cited 189×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving diversity of citizenship, as the district court's finding that the defendant intended to remain in Pennsylvania indefinitely was not clearly erroneous.
• Roofing & Sheet Metal Servs., Inc. v. LA Quinta Motor Inns, Inc.
  689 F.2d 982· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 146×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the transfer order from another circuit, but vacated the summary judgment because the district court erred in applying Alabama law when Arkansas choice of law rules should have governed.
• McSPARRAN v. Weist
  402 F.2d 867· 3d Cir.· 1968-10-02 ·cited 120×·via Manufactured Diversity Jurisdiction
  The majority affirmed the district court's dismissal of the mother's claim, holding that the manufactured diversity jurisdiction offended 28 U.S.C. § 1359. The dissenting judges would have reversed.
• Troupe v. Chicago
  234 F.2d 253· 2d Cir.· 1956-06-01 ·cited 102×
  An obviously erroneous jury instruction on a material matter, even if not properly preserved, warrants appellate review.
• Doucette v. Vincent
  194 F.2d 834· 1st Cir.· 1952-02-05 ·cited 101×
  The court held that evidence of a better appliance is not admissible to establish the legal standard of care in negligence or unseaworthiness claims, and that federal courts have jurisdiction over maritime claims brought on the law side under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, even without divers
• Henley v. Payne
  945 F.3d 1320· 11th Cir.· 2019-12-30 ·cited 97×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Heck v. Humphrey does not bar a § 1983 false arrest claim when the underlying criminal charge was dismissed, not invalidated, and does not share common elements with unrelated convictions. The court also found that a false imprisonment claim can lie
• L'Aiglon Apparel, Inc. v. Lana Lobell, Inc.
  214 F.2d 649· 3d Cir.· 1954-07-02 ·cited 97×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint stated a cause of action under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act for fraudulent advertising, but that Section 44 of the Act did not provide federal jurisdiction for domestic unfair competition claims.
• Aston Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc.
  263 F.2d 437· 2d Cir.· 1959-01-09 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the Jones Act applies when substantial contacts exist between the transaction and the United States, and that a maritime claim for unseaworthiness can be tried to a jury alongside a Jones Act claim under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.
• Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. The T. Eaton Co. Ltd. & John David Eaton
  234 F.2d 633· 2d Cir.· 1956-06-01 ·cited 88×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the Lanham Act does not provide extraterritorial remedies against foreign nationals acting under valid foreign trademarks in their home country, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing claims arising in Canada under the doctrine
• Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Labs.
  207 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1953-09-16 ·cited 82×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against appellants for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
• Wagenmann v. Adams
  829 F.2d 196· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 78×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  The court held that the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff were without probable cause, and that the jury's verdicts on false arrest and false imprisonment were supported by the evidence.
• McNALLY v. The Pulitzer Publ'g Co. & Ted Gest
  532 F.2d 69· 8th Cir.· 1976-03-05 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the publication of information already in the public record, even if obtained improperly, does not support a claim for invasion of constitutional privacy or the tort of public disclosure of private facts, nor does it state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) wit
• Brown v. Avemco Inv. Corp.
  603 F.2d 1367· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-12 ·cited 76×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion improperly reversed the lower court's decision by considering issues not properly raised on appeal and by disregarding the requirements of Rule 51, FRCivP, regarding timely objections to jury instructions.
• Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding
  723 F.2d 1173· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 75×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claims did not arise under federal law and lacked complete diversity, vacating the district court's judgment.
• Int'l Order OF Job's Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co.
  633 F.2d 912· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-10 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the defendant's use of the plaintiff's insignia on jewelry was not trademark infringement because the insignia served as functional aesthetic components rather than as designations of origin likely to confuse consumers.
• Perfecto Barrantes Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co.
  883 F.2d 1553· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 73×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  A domestically incorporated corporation with a principal place of business outside the United States does not have dual citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and thus its foreign principal place of business does not defeat diversity jurisdiction when sued by alien plai
• MAS v. Perry
  489 F.2d 1396· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-22 ·cited 72×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper because Mrs. Mas retained her Mississippi citizenship and the jurisdictional amount was met in good faith by Mr. Mas.
• Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. & Chem. Bank v. Merry
  592 F.2d 118· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-29 ·cited 70×
  A state court garnishment order to satisfy court-ordered family support obligations is an implied exception to ERISA's anti-alienation and preemption provisions.
• Schatte v. Int'l Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emps. & Moving Picture Mach. Operators of United States & Canada
  182 F.2d 158· 9th Cir.· 1950-05-01 ·cited 70×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief under the cited federal statutes, and that a prior decision involving the same parties and similar claims was decisive. The court also found that Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act was inapplicable due to the b
• Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Constr. Co., Inc.
  597 F.2d 596· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 69×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A state cannot assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation that has conducted no activities within the state, even if the plaintiff performed contractual obligations there.
• Amfac Mortg. Corp. v. Ariz. Mall OF Tempe, Inc.
  583 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1978-10-03 ·cited 69×
  The court held that a promissory note given in a commercial construction financing transaction is not a security under federal or Arizona securities laws, and a surety on a construction bond does not owe an implied tort duty of good faith to the obligee beyond the express terms o
• Jordine v. Walling
  185 F.2d 662· 3d Cir.· 1950-11-10 ·cited 68×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction over a civil action for maintenance and cure absent diversity of citizenship, even if joined with a Jones Act claim, because maintenance and cure is a non-federal maritime claim.
• Constantinos Xaros v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. & Darin & Armstrong, Inc.
  820 F.2d 1176· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-07 ·cited 67×
  Subcontractors and their sureties who are not signatories to a collective bargaining agreement are not considered 'employers' under ERISA, thus precluding federal subject matter jurisdiction over claims against them for a signatory's failure to make contributions.
• Calcote v. Tex. Pac. Coal & OIL Co.
  157 F.2d 216· 5th Cir.· 1946-07-31 ·cited 66×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the absence of indispensable parties requires reversal, even if the original parties are satisfied with the judgment.
• Ferdinand Henry Schutten v. Shell OIL Co.
  421 F.2d 869· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-30 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the Orleans Levee Board is an indispensable party whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction, and therefore, the case should be dismissed in equity and good conscience.
• Casio, Inc. v. S.M. & R. Co., Inc.
  755 F.2d 528· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 64×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the district court had diversity jurisdiction and that the defendant failed to establish a contractual right to return unsold watches, thus affirming the judgment for the plaintiff.
• Hudson v. Newell
  172 F.2d 848· 5th Cir.· 1949-02-24 ·cited 63×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that while full relief cannot be granted due to absent indispensable parties, limited relief is possible, and the suits should not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Fairfax Countywide Citizens Ass'n v. Cnty. OF Fairfax
  571 F.2d 1299· 4th Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 62×
  A district court lacks jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement that was not incorporated into a court order, unless there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
• Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Food Fair, Inc.
  177 F.2d 177· 1st Cir.· 1949-09-21 ·cited 62×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  Federal jurisdiction was proper because the potential value of protecting the plaintiff's trade name in a new market, including the right to expand without local competition, exceeded the jurisdictional minimum. The Massachusetts statute provided grounds for injunctive relief aga
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co.
  121 F.2d 561· 8th Cir.· 1941-07-11 ·cited 61×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  An appellate court cannot allow amendments to establish jurisdiction or direct a lower court to do so when jurisdiction is lacking.
• Phillips v. Rosenstiel
  490 F.2d 509· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-10 ·cited 60×
  The court held that federal courts should generally abstain from deciding complex state law issues, particularly those related to domestic relations, and reversed awards for attorneys' fees in certain actions.
• Hanoch Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic
  726 F.2d 774· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-03 ·cited 59×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as barred by the statute of limitations.
• Bishop v. Tice
  622 F.2d 349· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-16 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the plaintiff stated actionable damage claims for denial of procedural due process, contractual interference, and fraud and deceit, reversing the district court's dismissal.
• Coastal States Mktg., Inc. v. NEW England Petroleum Corp.
  604 F.2d 179· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-01 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals (TECA) has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals where an "ESA issue" has been adjudicated by the district court, even if the underlying claim did not arise under the ESA.
• Crouch v. Parsons Thomas Crouch
  566 F.2d 486· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-17 ·cited 58×·via Domestic Relations Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction did not apply to a suit for breach of a separation agreement, and the trial court properly calculated damages for future monthly payments by awarding their present value.
• Smith Petroleum Serv., Inc. v. Monsanto Chem. Co.
  420 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-07 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the Ryan doctrine of implied indemnity does not apply to non-maritime, land-based accidents, and that Mississippi's Workmen's Compensation Act bars a third-party tortfeasor from seeking indemnity from the employer.
• Bobby Jones Garden Apts., Inc. v. Suleski
  391 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-26 ·cited 58×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A federal court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, based on a determination of state law, is improper if there is a good faith expectation that the claim is valid under state law, as this implicates removability and federal jurisdiction.
• Mottolese v. Kaufman
  176 F.2d 301· 2d Cir.· 1949-07-06 ·cited 58×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the petition for mandamus was premature because the plaintiff had not yet been denied procedural advantages available in federal court, specifically regarding discovery.
• Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
  861 F.2d 1248· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 57×
  The federal district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the indemnity cross-claim after removal, and the Anti-Injunction Act permitted enjoining the state court. However, the district court erred in denying attorney's fees to the cross-claimant under Florida law.
• Maury A. Ryan v. Royal Ins. Co. OF Am.
  916 F.2d 731· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the insurer's duty to defend was not triggered by the insured's communication with environmental agencies because there was no 'suit' or equivalent adversarial proceeding, and the duty to indemnify did not arise as no costs had been incurred.
• Engelhardt v. Bell & Howell Co.
  327 F.2d 30· 8th Cir.· 1964-01-30 ·cited 56×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  A prior judgment on the merits based on the same cause of action bars subsequent claims, even if based on different statutes or alleging continuing violations, if the underlying wrongful acts and injuries are the same.
• Subin v. Goldsmith
  224 F.2d 753· 2d Cir.· 1955-06-03 ·cited 56×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the allegations in Counts I-IV were insufficient to state a claim for relief under SEC Rule X-14A-9, and that summary judgment was properly granted for Count V due to lack of proof.
• Minnehaha Cnty. v. Kelley
  150 F.2d 356· 8th Cir.· 1945-07-11 ·cited 56×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the administratrix's citizenship established federal jurisdiction, the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for failure to maintain a bridge, and evidence regarding the beneficiaries' physical condition was admissible to assess pecuniary loss.
• Chism v. Nat'l Heritage Life Ins. Co.
  637 F.2d 1328· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 55×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice due to the plaintiff's persistent failure to comply with discovery rules and court orders, and that the Doe defendants did not destroy diversity jurisdiction as no claims wer
• Standard Fittings Co. v. Sapag, S.A.
  625 F.2d 630· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-11 ·cited 55×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that Sapag's contacts with Louisiana were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the Louisiana Long-Arm Statute and the Due Process Clause.
• Kozak v. Administrator
  278 F.2d 104· 8th Cir.· 1960-04-26 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the appellants were entitled to intervene as a matter of right because their interests might be inadequately represented by the existing parties and they might be bound by the judgment, and that their intervention did not divest the court of jurisdiction.
• Prejean v. Sonatrach, Inc.
  652 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-13 ·cited 54×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the Texas Long Arm Statute requires a nexus between the cause of action and the defendant's contacts with Texas, and that the tort did not occur in Texas for statutory purposes. The court also affirmed that due process requires purposeful availment of the foru