661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient minimum contacts with Florida and failed to allege tortious acts occurred within the state after his relocation.
-
The thirty-day period for removal begins when a defendant receives a writ of summons, praecipe, or complaint that provides adequate notice of federal jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) requires federal courts to apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state, and under New York's choice-of-law analysis, Chinese law applies to limit damages in this case.
-
A petition for removal that fails to state the amount in controversy or the defendant corporation's principal place of business contains missing allegations, not imperfect ones, and thus cannot be amended after the thirty-day statutory period has expired.
-
716 F. Supp. 1456·
S.D. Fla.·
1989-07-21
·cited 5×
The court held that the excess arbitration award is a recoverable element of damages in a first-party bad faith action under Florida Statute § 624.155, and the jury's finding of zero damages was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction, as the parties collusively created jurisdiction by agreement.
-
817 F.2d 1062·
3d Cir.·
1987-05-04
·cited 5×
A plaintiff's timely notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) precludes the court from subsequently dismissing the action with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), and an order appointing an arbitrator is final and appealable if it grants full relief.
-
650 F. Supp. 766·
S.D. Fla.·
1986-12-30
·cited 5×
The court held that certain statements in the broadcast were capable of a defamatory interpretation, but that the plaintiffs were limited public figures who would need to prove actual malice.
-
595 F. Supp. 529·
S.D. Fla.·
1984-09-11
·cited 5×
The court held that the case must be dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction and failure to comply with Florida statutes regarding direct actions against insurers and wrongful death claims.
-
The court held that the denial of disability benefits was not supported by substantial evidence, as the on-the-job accident contributed to the appellant's total disability, even if it aggravated a pre-existing condition.
-
677 F.2d 378·
4th Cir.·
1982-03-25
·cited 5×
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration because an indispensable party, Bellemead, would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
-
633 F.2d 1158·
5th Cir.·
1981-01-08
·cited 5×
The court held that the timely filing of an action in a competent court, even one lacking personal jurisdiction over the defendant, interrupts the prescriptive period under Louisiana law. Therefore, the plaintiff's action was not time-barred.
-
470 F.2d 1078·
5th Cir.·
1972-11-20
·cited 5×
-
460 F.2d 678·
5th Cir.·
1972-03-24
·cited 5×
The court held that J. Edgar Dyal and his attorneys lacked the authority, real or apparent, to bind other defendants to a stipulation selling real property, as Georgia law requires written authority for such transactions. However, Dyal himself is bound by the stipulation due to h
-
The court held that interest, regardless of its source, is excluded when calculating the jurisdictional amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
The plaintiff is estopped by the final judgment in the Delaware proceeding from establishing the basic facts upon which her cause of action rests, thus requiring affirmance of the dismissal.
-
2021 WL 1541511·
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-13
·cited 4×
The court held that the parties' pleadings failed to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of citizenship for individuals and entities.
-
A district court denied a defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply to plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to dismiss. The court held that sur-replies are only permitted in exceptional circumstances, and citing older case law in a reply does not constitute such circ
-
459 F. Supp. 2d 1294·
S.D. Fla.·
2006-10-30
·cited 4×
The court held that Dasma's motion to remand is denied, Realty's motion for summary judgment is granted, and Dasma's claims against PWC are dismissed for lack of a justiciable case or controversy.
-
399 F. Supp. 2d 1366·
S.D. Fla.·
2005-11-03
·cited 4×
The court held that the defendants' motion to dismiss based on abstention should be denied because the presence of coercive relief, specifically rescission, triggers the stricter Colorado River abstention standard, which was not met.
-
Patricia Weiss and Thomas Pollak appealed a summary judgment dismissing their breach of fiduciary duty and accounting claims against the Courshons, former trustees of family trusts. The court affirmed, applying collateral estoppel based on a prior federal court judgment that had
-
944 F. Supp. 1530·
M.D. Fla.·
1996-10-30
·cited 4×
The court granted summary judgment for most claims, finding no genuine issue of material fact, but denied summary judgment on one count of tortious interference with business relationships due to factual disputes.
-
The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient minimum contacts with Florida and failed to allege that tortious acts occurred within the state.
-
The court held that the district court's finding of diversity jurisdiction was not supported by sufficient evidence and remanded for further factual inquiry.
-
958 F.2d 186·
7th Cir.·
1992-03-19
·cited 4×
The court held that the defendants acted within their contractual rights by increasing margin requirements and liquidating accounts, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate bad faith or actual malice.
-
957 F.2d 707·
9th Cir.·
1992-02-25
·cited 4×
The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper, jury instructions were appropriate, and the admission of expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion, affirming the jury verdict and pre-judgment interest award.
-
The court held that a limited partnership's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes depends on the citizenship of all its members, not just its general partners, and remanded for a determination of whether complete diversity existed.
-
Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because the breach of contract claim, which is the predominant cause of action, arose there, and the trademark infringement claim is intertwined with it.
-
The court held that a derivative action could be recharacterized as a class action to preserve diversity jurisdiction, and the limited partnership could be dismissed as a dispensable party.
-
A New York statute providing a sixty-day extension of the statute of limitations applies to federal court diversity suits, as it is an integral part of the state's statute of limitations.
-
The court held that subject matter jurisdiction existed because diversity was present at the time of trial and judgment, and affirmed the district court's findings of fraud and breach of contract. However, it reversed the denial of prejudgment interest.
-
The court held that the conditional option contract's terms were too indefinite to support claims for specific performance or damages, and that the defendant did not waive these deficiencies.
-
Goodyear is liable under Arizona's strict product liability law for defective tires manufactured by its subsidiary, despite not being the direct manufacturer or seller.
-
852 F.2d 1074·
8th Cir.·
1988-08-01
·cited 4×
The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence and that any error in the jury instruction was harmless.
-
A federal court lacks jurisdiction over an action that, in substance, attacks the validity of a will or its probate, even if framed as a tort claim, when the state provides an exclusive statutory remedy for will contests.
-
The court held that a party cannot raise a choice of law issue for the first time at the attorneys' fees stage if it was not included in the pretrial order and doing so would cause manifest injustice.
-
Removal was proper as defendants' principal places of business were not in Florida and Dole was fraudulently joined; the case is dismissed for forum non conveniens.
-
821 F.2d 418·
7th Cir.·
1987-06-09
·cited 4×
The court held that while the trial court improperly relied on settlement letters to find the plaintiff responsible for delays, other evidence supported that finding, but the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's warranty claim after the defendant sought contract enforceme
-
802 F.2d 1275·
10th Cir.·
1986-10-06
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding no diversity jurisdiction due to improper joinder of a representative to create diversity, and no federal question jurisdiction as the complaint failed to sta
-
The court held that the district court correctly found that diversity jurisdiction had been improperly manufactured by appointing an administratrix for the purpose of creating diversity, and thus the action was properly dismissed.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the suit as a domestic relations dispute, which is outside the scope of federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
661 F. Supp. 644·
S.D. Fla.·
1985-09-30
·cited 4×
A surety for a subcontractor is not an 'employer' under ERISA, and thus claims against it under ERISA lack federal subject-matter jurisdiction, but may proceed as pendant state claims if diversity jurisdiction exists.
-
The court held that the 'reasonable use and natural wear' exception in a lease surrender covenant does not excuse the lessee from repairing or replacing equipment that deteriorates from normal wear and tear during the lease term, especially when the repair covenant is absolute.
-
The court held that the Federal Employee's Compensation Act (FECA) payments should not be fully deducted from no-fault benefits because the portion of FECA payments recouped by the government under subrogation rights is not a true benefit to the claimant.
-
737 F.2d 540·
6th Cir.·
1984-06-18
·cited 4×
The court held that the West Virginia Board of Regents is an arm or agency of the State of West Virginia, not a citizen, thus precluding diversity jurisdiction, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the Eleventh Amendment issue.
-
The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because a material issue of fact existed regarding whether the seller's warranties, made "to the best of his knowledge," accurately reflected the company's financial condition.
-
The court held that a subpoenaed appearance and testimony in the District of Columbia does not constitute an "act or omission in the District of Columbia" for purposes of the D.C. long-arm statute, and therefore cannot serve as a basis for personal jurisdiction.
-
713 F.2d 1360·
8th Cir.·
1983-08-05
·cited 4×
The dissenting judge would reverse and remand, finding the jury's verdict unsupported by the instructions given and the theories submitted.
-
692 F.2d 1309·
10th Cir.·
1982-11-12
·cited 4×
The court held that the defendant's contacts with Kansas, including partial payments and negotiations for a contract to be performed in part in Kansas, were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the Kansas long-arm statute and satisfy due process requirements.
-
675 F.2d 633·
5th Cir.·
1982-04-28
·cited 4×
The court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the Travelers change of beneficiary form, finding no error in the determination of permanent mental incapacity.