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

• Angus v. Shiley Inc.
  989 F.2d 142· 3d Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction and correctly granted summary judgment, as the plaintiff failed to state a claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law.
• Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
  941 F.2d 119· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 7×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  This is a dissenting opinion arguing that the judge of compensation claims should have affirmed the order in its entirety, particularly regarding the wage loss and deemed earnings, and should not have remanded the case for further findings.
• Hudson Ins. Co. v. Double D Mgmt. Co., Inc.
  768 F. Supp. 1542· M.D. Fla.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 7×
  The court held that cleanup costs under CERCLA constitute 'damages' under the insurance policies, but the pollution exclusion and crop dusting exclusions preclude coverage for the insured.
• In re Klaus Hubert Goerg v. Edgardo L. Parungao
  844 F.2d 1562· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 7×·via Probate Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  A foreign insolvency proceeding concerning a decedent's estate can qualify for ancillary relief under section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, even if the estate does not meet the Code's definition of 'debtor'.
• Durning v. The First Boston Corp.
  815 F.2d 1265· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Official Statement did not unambiguously refute the plaintiffs' allegations of inadequate disclosure regarding bond callability, thus stating a claim under federal securities laws.
• First State Underwriters Agency of New England Reinsurance Corp. v. Travelers Ins. Co. & Certain-Teed Prods. Corp. & Rollins
  803 F.2d 1308· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the First State umbrella policy required exhaustion of underlying policy limits for losses occurring during First State's policy period, and that Pennsylvania law, not New Jersey law, governed the award of attorney's fees.
• Riedel v. Bancam, S.A.
  792 F.2d 587· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 7×
  Certificates of deposit issued by a foreign bank are considered 'securities' under Ohio law, and the act of state doctrine does not bar claims based on the failure to register them. However, the act of state doctrine does bar breach of contract claims related to repayment under f
• N.Y. State Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Kalkus
  764 F.2d 1015· 4th Cir.· 1985-06-20 ·cited 7×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  The citizenship of all partners, both general and limited, must be considered to determine diversity jurisdiction for a limited partnership. A limited partner's citizenship is not irrelevant simply because they lack management authority or capacity to sue.
• Pecherski v. Gen. Motors Corp. & Jane Doe
  636 F.2d 1156· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-13 ·cited 7×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  Removal was improper because the defendant failed to establish diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and all named defendants, including the unserved fictitious defendant.
• Pac. Trading Co. v. Wilson & Co., Inc.
  547 F.2d 367· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the cited federal statutes do not create a private right of action for monetary damages, and therefore, the dismissal of claims based on these statutes was proper.
• Irwin M. Brown v. Pyle
  310 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1962-11-16 ·cited 7×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A federal court has jurisdiction over a suit arising from an automobile collision in the forum state, but venue is controlled by federal statute, not state nonresident motorist statutes.
• Chicago v. Stude
  204 F.2d 954· 8th Cir.· 1953-06-17 ·cited 7×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the filing of a complaint alleging diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy properly invoked the original jurisdiction of the federal district court, notwithstanding a prior, procedurally flawed attempt to appeal a state administrative
• Collier v. Harvey
  179 F.2d 664· 10th Cir.· 1949-12-28 ·cited 7×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the federal court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy regarding insurance coverage, even though a state court action was pending.
• Laird v. United Shipyards, Inc.
  163 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1947-08-13 ·cited 7×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The New York statute of limitations bars the suit because the alleged cause of action accrued no later than February 28, 1929, and the statute had run before the suit was filed.
• Farr v. Detroit Tr. Co.
  116 F.2d 807· 6th Cir.· 1941-01-14 ·cited 7×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the appellant's cross-claim for lack of jurisdiction because, when parties are aligned according to their real interests, there was no diversity of citizenship between the appellant and the defendants in his cross-claim.
• Nieter v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C.
  2018 WL 3761045· M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-20 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  A proposal for settlement, standing alone, does not establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Dixon v. Countrywide Fin. Corp.
  664 F. Supp. 2d 1304· S.D. Fla.· 2009-10-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's entire second amended complaint is barred by Florida's banking statute of frauds because the alleged credit agreement was not in writing and signed by both parties.
• 316, Inc. v. Md. Cas. Co.
  625 F. Supp. 2d 1187· N.D. Fla.· 2008-08-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a claim for bad faith under Florida Statute § 624.155 is premature if filed before the extent of damages owed under the insurance policy has been determined, especially when the insurer has invoked the policy's appraisal process in good faith.
• Bankston v. Ill. Nat'l Ins.
  443 F. Supp. 2d 1380· M.D. Fla.· 2006-05-30 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the action was untimely because the defendant could have and should have ascertained the removability of the case within the thirty-day statutory period.
• A.V. Consultants v. Barnes
  978 F.2d 996· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact regarding damages for breach of contract and intentional interference.
• In re Shell OIL Co.
  970 F.2d 355· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A post-removal affidavit or stipulation limiting recovery does not authorize remand if the complaint itself established federal jurisdiction.
• Barnes v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  962 F.2d 513· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the one-year time limit for removal is a procedural rule that can be waived, and that the bus duct was an 'improvement' to real property under the statute of repose. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim was time-barred.
• Vild v. Visconsi
  956 F.2d 560· 6th Cir.· 1992-02-10 ·cited 6×
  The dissent argues that the predicate acts were sufficiently related to meet the continuity requirement for a RICO claim.
• Transp. Cybernetics v. Forest Transit Comm'n
  950 F.2d 350· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that Forest County waived its merits arguments, ordering the writ of mandamus to issue.
• Lundquist v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc.
  946 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1991-10-01 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court's finding of New Hampshire citizenship was not clearly erroneous, affirming the dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Burger King Corp. v. Hall
  770 F. Supp. 633· S.D. Fla.· 1991-05-21 ·cited 6×
  A terminated franchisee's continued unauthorized use of the franchisor's trademarks constitutes infringement and unfair competition, and the franchisee cannot use wrongful termination as a defense to avoid injunctive relief.
• Ingersoll-Rand Fin. Corp. v. Anderson
  921 F.2d 497· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the authenticity of the signature on the promissory note, precluding summary judgment.
• Maguire v. Hughes Aircraft Corp.
  912 F.2d 67· 3d Cir.· 1990-08-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government contractor defense, as reformulated in Boyle, applies when the United States approves reasonably precise specifications, the equipment conforms to them, and the supplier warns of known dangers, thereby preempting state tort law.
• Free v. United States
  879 F.2d 1535· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court affirmed the judgment, denying the appeal because the appellant failed to present a non-frivolous argument regarding the magistrate's credibility determinations.
• Steve D. Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc.
  870 F.2d 1044· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A dismissal with prejudice based on a statute of limitations in one federal diversity action has res judicata effect on a duplicative action filed in another federal district court.
• Parlato v. Abbott Labs.
  850 F.2d 203· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A common law claim for wrongful discharge cannot be based solely on a violation of public policy embodied in a statute that provides its own administrative remedy.
• Thomes v. Equitable Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  837 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the constitutional issue raised by the plaintiffs regarding the FSLIC's administrative scheme was not ripe for review because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
• Overseas Dev. Disc Corp. v. Sangamo Constr. Co., Inc.
  840 F.2d 1319· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's application of Kuwaiti law to determine quantum meruit recovery, finding the district court properly considered mitigating factors to reduce the award based on market value of services.
• Weisman v. Charles E. Smith Mgmt., Inc.
  829 F.2d 511· 4th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, holding that the district court is the proper initial forum to address allegations of fraud or misconduct in discovery, and that the plaintiff's additional grounds for appeal did not independently justify reversal.
• Nicholas v. Buchanan
  806 F.2d 305· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-02 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient minimum contacts to justify personal jurisdiction over the defendant in Rhode Island.
• Mun. Energy Agency OF Miss. v. BIG Rivers Elec. Corp.
  804 F.2d 338· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in staying the declaratory judgment action pending arbitration and in refusing to enjoin the separate action to compel arbitration.
• Cohn v. G.D. Searle & Co.
  784 F.2d 460· 3d Cir.· 1986-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying its Commerce Clause holding retroactively, and that the New Jersey tolling statute's invalidation should apply nonretroactively based on the Chevron test.
• Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor & City Council OF Baltimore
  733 F.2d 484· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court granted the City of Baltimore's motion to stay the injunction preventing its eminent domain action but denied its request to enjoin the Colts from preparing to play in Indianapolis.
• Gonsalves v. Amoco Shipping Co.
  733 F.2d 1020· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 6×
  A maintenance and cure claim is not sufficiently separate and independent from a Jones Act claim arising from the same operative facts to permit removal of the entire action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
• Krier-Hawthorne v. Beam
  728 F.2d 658· 4th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the citizenship of a personal representative appointed solely to manufacture diversity jurisdiction should be disregarded, and the citizenship of the real party in interest should be considered instead.
• Batka v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  704 F.2d 684· 3d Cir.· 1983-04-07 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the insurer only needed to prove its fraud defense by a preponderance of the evidence, when New Jersey law requires clear and convincing evidence for rescission of an insurance policy.
• Exxon Corp. v. United States
  655 F.2d 1112· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court exercised its supervisory powers to consolidate litigation concerning oil pricing regulations in the District of Columbia action, staying proceedings in the Texas action.
• Cohen v. Hartman
  634 F.2d 318· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the alleged tortious conversion of funds between private individuals does not violate the "law of nations" and therefore does not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Alien Tort Statute.
• The Coca-Cola Co. v. Stewart
  621 F.2d 287· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce fall within the Lanham Act's jurisdiction, reversing the district court's dismissal.
• Griffin v. RED RUN Lodge, Inc.
  610 F.2d 1198· 4th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  The court held that the district court erred in denying injunctive relief based on an incorrect application of the comparative hardship doctrine and in dismissing the damages claim for lack of jurisdictional amount.
• Pacurar v. Miles A. Hernly
  611 F.2d 179· 7th Cir.· 1979-11-21 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
• Boston OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Balbin
  591 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 6×
  A federal district court may not decline to exercise jurisdiction over an interpleader action simply because a state court action is pending, especially when state certification procedures are available for resolving state law issues.
• Fury Imports, Inc. v. Shakespeare Co.
  554 F.2d 1376· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-24 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the contract was renewed and that Shakespeare's actions were not justified, but a new trial is required on compensatory damages.
• Rosenbloom v. Adams
  552 F.2d 1336· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-29 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the pleadings, though inartfully drawn, were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and that an insider's status alone does not bar a Rule 10b-5 claim.
• Albright v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  531 F.2d 132· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 6×
  A federal court's jurisdiction upon removal is determined by the pleadings at the time of removal, and subsequent events reducing the amount in controversy do not divest jurisdiction, even if the same judge previously found the claim insufficient.