661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
510 F. Supp. 2d 1015·
S.D. Fla.·
2007-01-29
·cited 10×
The court held that claims for fraudulent inducement and tortious interference are barred by the economic loss rule, and the remaining breach of contract claim does not meet the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
-
220 F. Supp. 2d 1338·
M.D. Fla.·
2002-07-03
·cited 10×
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, recommending denial of motions to dismiss fraud claims and ordering the plaintiff to clarify the status of a trust for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
-
The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not create independent federal question jurisdiction, and a petition to compel arbitration must independently establish federal jurisdiction based on the petition's face, not the underlying dispute.
-
921 F.2d 700·
7th Cir.·
1991-01-03
·cited 10×
The court held that the SBA, as a federal agency, is not a citizen of any state for diversity purposes, thus failing the requirements of the federal interpleader statute (28 U.S.C. § 1335). Consequently, the injunction issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 must be vacated.
-
The court held that a jury could reasonably infer that the employer's proffered reasons for termination were pretextual, thus reversing the grant of summary judgment.
-
The court held that it could not reach the merits of the appeal because the diversity of citizenship jurisdiction was not properly pleaded and is not evident from the record.
-
876 F.2d 26·
5th Cir.·
1989-06-22
·cited 10×
The court held that the employer's suit for a declaratory judgment regarding its obligation to provide maintenance and cure to an injured employee presented an actual controversy and that the district court erred by dismissing the suit without stating reasons.
-
The court held that the pleadings did not raise a substantial question of diversity of citizenship, and amendment of the complaint would be futile, thus affirming the dismissal.
-
842 F.2d 762·
5th Cir.·
1988-04-19
·cited 10×
The court held that Gulf Union diligently pursued regulatory approval, entitling them to the return of escrow deposits, and affirmed the award of attorney's fees.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions for discovery abuse, but erred in its jury instructions regarding negligence per se and contributory negligence.
-
797 F.2d 747·
9th Cir.·
1986-08-15
·cited 10×
The court held that the defendant failed to meet his burden of production to show a change in domicile from California to Hong Kong by the date the lawsuit was filed, and thus the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
-
798 F.2d 8·
1st Cir.·
1986-08-11
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court properly stayed Amtrak's declaratory relief action pending the outcome of a state condemnation proceeding because the issues were identical and staying the federal action avoided piecemeal litigation.
-
791 F.2d 987·
1st Cir.·
1986-05-29
·cited 10×
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act because their allegations did not demonstrate actual coercion or intimidation, and that dismissal of state law claims was proper due to the indispensability of the non-divers
-
The court held that the Nevada Supreme Court's judgment, which barred the plaintiff's claim against the estate, was res judicata and entitled to full faith and credit, precluding federal review of the constitutional claims. However, the Nevada judgment did not preclude claims aga
-
The citizenship of beneficiaries, not a nominal representative, determines diversity jurisdiction when the representative has no independent stake in the outcome under state law.
-
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, adhering to established circuit precedent regarding the domestic relations exception.
-
734 F.2d 229·
5th Cir.·
1984-06-14
·cited 10×
The court held that the plaintiff's injuries may be covered by the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, which does not bar suit against a negligent third party, and thus the state workers' compensation act's exclusive remedy provision does not apply.
-
The court held that while the federal district court had jurisdiction, the plaintiff failed to state a claim because Indiana law vests exclusive jurisdiction over employee injury claims with the Industrial Disputes Board, thereby eliminating other causes of action.
-
695 F.2d 626·
D.C. Cir.·
1982-12-10
·cited 10×
A district court must conduct a careful, practical analysis under Rule 19 before dismissing an action for failure to join parties, and cannot dismiss based on conclusory labels like 'necessary' or 'indispensable' without such analysis.
-
629 F.2d 397·
5th Cir.·
1980-10-27
·cited 10×
The court held that the citizenship of an interested stakeholder can be considered for establishing minimal diversity under the federal interpleader statute, and that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar this interpleader action seeking prospective relief.
-
607 F.2d 1157·
5th Cir.·
1979-12-07
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction because the defendants lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Georgia.
-
589 F.2d 761·
4th Cir.·
1978-12-22
·cited 10×
An insurer has a duty to defend its insured when the allegations in the underlying complaint, if proven, could potentially fall within the policy's coverage, even if the allegations also suggest excluded conduct.
-
580 F.2d 1·
1st Cir.·
1978-05-30
·cited 10×
-
The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant's alleged negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's losses, as there was no evidence the plaintiff would have sold his stock had he received the information he sought.
-
The court held that diversity jurisdiction was lacking because a defendant corporation's principal place of business was in the same state as plaintiffs, despite a stipulation to the contrary.
-
The court held that the administrator's appointment was for legitimate reasons, not to manufacture diversity jurisdiction, and thus the action should proceed in federal court.
-
417 F.2d 820·
9th Cir.·
1969-11-04
·cited 10×
The court held that the defendant corporation's allegation of citizenship for removal purposes was a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation, and thus insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's failure to provide timely proof of disability under Group Policy No. G-1110-R, as required by clear and unambiguous notice provisions, barred his claim for benefits based on the higher life insurance amount. The court also held that the defenda
-
The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant Baumgartner and reversed the judgment against him, but affirmed the district court's finding of unfair competition against the other defendants.
-
The court held that the Department of Charities, as a creditor beneficiary, had a superior right to the insurance proceeds over the substituted beneficiary, even though the insured changed beneficiaries without consent.
-
A contract clause requiring suit commencement and process service within one year is valid under 46 U.S.C. § 183b, even if admiralty rules differ on commencement.
-
The court held that under Kansas law, the beneficiary bears the burden of proving accidental death in a suit for double indemnity under a policy that insures against death by accidental means and excludes death by self-destruction.
-
308 F.2d 35·
10th Cir.·
1962-08-15
·cited 10×
The court held that private property owners lack standing under Kansas law to challenge a municipal annexation ordinance, and that the refusal of state officials to bring such an action does not violate federal due process.
-
297 F.2d 561·
8th Cir.·
1962-01-12
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce private gas purchase contracts, and that payments made under compulsion of an invalid state order did not alter the contract rates, entitling the buyer to a refund of overpayments.
-
The court held that the minor plaintiff's domicile, not his guardian's, determined diversity jurisdiction, and the minor had established domicile in Illinois.
-
262 F.2d 401·
9th Cir.·
1958-12-08
·cited 10×
The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably infer that carbon monoxide in the bus caused the plaintiff's injuries, and that the trial court did not err in its instructions or rulings.
-
An employee stock option plan is not illegal for allowing installment payments with dividends credited, nor for granting options without direct consideration, as long as it's approved by stockholders and serves a legitimate corporate purpose like employee retention.
-
The court held that the Railway Company, despite being named a defendant, must be realigned as a plaintiff due to its true interests in the derivative action, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the Massachusetts religious entities were corporations for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint counts.
-
The court held that a claim against a government employee is not ancillary to a claim against the United States under the Tort Claims Act without independent grounds for jurisdiction, such as diversity of citizenship.
-
209 F.2d 135·
1st Cir.·
1953-12-17
·cited 10×
The court held that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for the defendant, as the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that his discharge was not justified under a reasonable interpretation of 'permanent' employment and the satisfaction clau
-
The court held that the United States District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the bribe money, and the Pennsylvania state court lacked jurisdiction to hear a suit against the sovereign without consent.
-
The court held that the appealing parties could not complain about the dismissal of another party's action, and their own counterclaims failed to state a cause of action.
-
The 1940 amendment to the Judicial Code, which expanded diversity jurisdiction to include controversies between citizens of a state and citizens of the District of Columbia, is unconstitutional as it exceeds Congress's power under Article III of the Constitution.
-
A trial court's order compelling a plaintiff to elect between claims of negligence under the Jones Act and breach of warranty of seaworthiness is prejudicial error.
-
A domiciliary administrator may sue under the Federal Employers' Liability Act in a state other than the state of domicil, even without ancillary letters.
-
The court held that the appellant's established residence in Oklahoma for venue purposes was not negated by a potential future intention to return to Arkansas.
-
The court held that the State Water Conservation Board is an alter ego of the state, and therefore, a suit against it based solely on diversity jurisdiction is a suit against the state and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
-
The court held that a federal court has jurisdiction to modify a previously issued injunction when subsequent changes in law render the enjoined conduct legal, even if the original decree was final for appeal purposes.
-
The court held that the insured's cooperation with the insurance company presented a question of fact for the jury, and the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the insurer.