661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
587 F.2d 70·
1st Cir.·
1978-11-20
·cited 12×
The Eleventh Amendment bars a federal contract action against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its officials, and the allegations do not support a civil rights claim against the individual defendants.
-
An assignment of a claim by a non-diverse parent corporation to its newly-created, wholly-owned diverse subsidiary, which has no business purpose other than prosecuting the claim, is improper and violates 28 U.S.C. § 1359, as it serves only to manufacture federal diversity jurisd
-
538 F.2d 1284·
7th Cir.·
1976-07-29
·cited 12×
A national banking association's interest rate on any loan is governed by the laws of the state where the bank is located, not where the borrower resides.
-
533 F.2d 994·
6th Cir.·
1976-04-15
·cited 12×
The court held that the libel claim was barred by the statute of limitations, but the district court erred in dismissing the entire action for lack of jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy.
-
The court held that the default judgment was properly entered because the defendant failed to timely answer, waived defenses by not raising them promptly, and did not demonstrate excusable neglect.
-
Section 293 of the Patent Codification Act is not available for service of process in disputes concerning patent license agreements, as these are considered contract disputes rather than proceedings affecting patent validity or infringement.
-
A federal court has diversity jurisdiction over a wrongful death action between two Indians occurring in Indian country, even if state courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction, because federal courts are not bound by state rules that would prevent them from exercising their own ju
-
The court held that while federal jurisdiction might exist for fraud claims, abstention was appropriate due to the case's entanglement with state probate matters and the availability of state court remedies.
-
The court held that the district court has discretion to exercise pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim for abuse of process, but that the appellant should be allowed to amend its complaint to establish diversity jurisdiction by striking a non-diverse party.
-
The court held that a claim alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's just compensation clause, arising from a public service corporation's unauthorized taking of private property for a pipeline, presents a federal question sufficient for federal court jurisdiction.
-
The court held that a plaintiff cannot instruct a jury that it has a right to render a compromise verdict contrary to the law, and that the rule regarding "manufactured" diversity jurisdiction should not be applied retrospectively to undo a judgment on the merits.
-
Under Kansas law, a plaintiff in an invasion of privacy suit cannot recover substantial damages without presenting some evidence of general damages, even if special damages are not proven.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish the jurisdictional amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction, as the accrued payments and frivolous punitive damages claim did not meet the threshold.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the defendant's negligence in designing and installing the damper was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, but not for the alleged defect in the tail pipe due to the employer's knowledge.
-
The court remanded the case for further proceedings, with a concurring judge suggesting the trial court might still dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction upon a more complete record.
-
The court held that the trial court's finding of no diversity of citizenship was not clearly erroneous, and therefore the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper.
-
336 F.2d 560·
9th Cir.·
1964-08-28
·cited 12×
The court held that the action for recovery of mining properties was barred by California's five-year statute of limitations because the appellants were neither seised nor possessed of the property within the statutory period, and the deeds conveyed absolute title.
-
An unincorporated joint stock association organized under New York law is considered a citizen of New York for the purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is an appealable order, and the District Court abused its discretion in denying the motion given the unusual circumstances and erroneous beliefs that led to the dismissal. The dismissal of a duplicative federal action was affirmed.
-
-
The court held that the Louisiana Medical Practice Act is constitutional and that the Board of Medical Examiners did not act arbitrarily in refusing to accept chiropractic diplomas for medical licensure.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in its judgment, as the contract was not usurious and the individual Brayton was not an indispensable party. The appellee's cross-assignment of error was also dismissed.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the defendant did not reside in the judicial district where the suit was filed, as required by statute.
-
The court held that the optionees' conditional tender of a draft, without actual deposit of funds, did not constitute valid exercise of the option, and thus no contract for sale was formed.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction, as the incompetent plaintiff was domiciled in California, and that the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute concerning the settlement agreement and st
-
A plaintiff may sue a corporation in federal court in a state where it is incorporated, even if it is also incorporated in another state, and the fact of dual incorporation does not defeat diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the insurer could not escape liability under the policy's exclusionary clause because the insured did not consent to the pilot's specific violation of aviation regulations.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence by the mail truck driver and that there was no federal jurisdiction over claims against the individual defendants due to lack of diversity.
-
The court affirms the lower court's decision, finding that the relator had opportunities to appeal jurisdictional issues and address inability to pay the fine.
-
The judgment below should be reversed and the action dismissed for improper venue.
-
The court held that the patent claims were invalid for lack of invention due to anticipation by prior art, and that the unfair competition counterclaim lacked federal jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the reorganization plan clearly called for a sale of stock, and the appellants were bound by the court's final decrees approving the plan and its execution, precluding claims based on alleged oral agreements or fraud not disclosed at the time.
-
-
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the entire 120-acre claim. This was based on the principle that once a federal court acquires jurisdiction over a portion of an indivisible cause of action involving
-
519 F. Supp. 2d 1195·
M.D. Fla.·
2007-06-19
·cited 11×
The court denied the motion to transfer venue, finding that the plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed as the balance of convenience did not strongly favor transfer. The court also addressed the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
-
417 F. Supp. 2d 1309·
S.D. Fla.·
2006-01-13
·cited 11×
The court held that the assault and battery exclusion and the breach of representations and warranties endorsement precluded coverage, and thus Clarendon had no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds.
-
The court held that tenants cannot bring an implied cause of action under federal housing statutes for monetary damages and that tort claims for economic losses arising from a contract breach are barred by the economic loss rule.
-
The court held that a prior arbitration award, once satisfied, bars a subsequent claim for the same compensatory damages against another party. However, the court also held that the district court erred in dismissing a claim for incidental damages and attorney's fees for lack of
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to remand because it improperly considered the merits of the release defense, which was common to both diverse and non-diverse defendants, in determining fraudulent joinder.
-
903 F.2d 480·
7th Cir.·
1990-05-25
·cited 11×
The court held that claims arising under the Medicare Act, even if brought under diversity jurisdiction and styled as state law claims, are subject to the Act's exclusive administrative review provisions and cannot be brought in federal court.
-
816 F.2d 1273·
8th Cir.·
1987-04-27
·cited 11×
The court held that federal courts must defer to tribal courts to determine jurisdiction over matters concerning tribal self-government, even when diversity jurisdiction requirements are met.
-
The federal court properly abstained from exercising diversity jurisdiction over a case involving child custody disputes and related tort claims, as it falls within the domestic relations exception.
-
563 F.2d 769·
5th Cir.·
1977-11-23
·cited 11×
Federal courts are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341 from enjoining state tax collection if a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and special street paving assessments are considered 'taxes' for this purpose.
-
The court held that the smelter's owner and operator, Blackwell Zinc, was an indispensable party under Rule 19(b), and thus the district court did not err in dismissing the action for want of an indispensable party.
-
478 F.2d 39·
10th Cir.·
1973-04-26
·cited 11×
The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because material issues of fact existed regarding whether the transactions constituted an investment contract and whether plaintiff relied on defendant's alleged misrepresentations.
-
The court affirmed the injunction against trademark infringement and unfair competition but modified the order regarding the destruction of certain documents. The court also affirmed the denial of an accounting.
-
A federal court lacks jurisdiction if the amount in controversy, determined from the plaintiff's viewpoint and considering only claims against the insured up to the policy limits, does not exceed $10,000, even if a counterclaim exceeds that amount, especially when the defendant c
-
The court affirmed the judgment entered on the jury's verdict, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof required for a libel claim by a public figure.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for damages, including personal suffering and inconvenience, were substantial enough to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and the lower court erred in dismissing the case.
-
The court held that the California Toll Bridge Authority is merely an agency of the State of California, and therefore a suit against it based on diversity of citizenship must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.