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 the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to remove the case because the claims against the defendants were not separate and independent, and therefore, the subsequent summary judgment was invalid.
-
603 F.2d 821·
10th Cir.·
1979-08-17
·cited 4×
The court held that the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction purposes in a declaratory judgment action by an insurer exceeds $10,000, and that the household exclusion clause in the policy relieved the insurer of liability.
-
The court held that a complaint alleging intentional interference with an inheritance is sufficient on its face to confer subject matter jurisdiction in a federal diversity court, even if probate proceedings are ongoing.
-
584 F.2d 97·
5th Cir.·
1978-11-17
·cited 4×
The court held that the injuries and death were not "caused by accident" within the meaning of the liability policy because they resulted from intentional acts, not an accidental cause.
-
A prisoner does not automatically acquire a new domicile upon incarceration; they must demonstrate a bona fide intention to change domicile, and mere allegations of residence are insufficient.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal and summary judgment, holding that the appellant's claims were barred by res judicata and estoppel by judgment due to prior litigation on the same issues.
-
The court held that a general verdict inconsistent with jury interrogatories cannot stand.
-
519 F.2d 129·
6th Cir.·
1975-06-13
·cited 4×
The court held that a fourth-party complaint filed after judgment satisfaction can be sustained by independent diversity jurisdiction, and that the insurer failed to meet its burden to specifically exclude Ryan doctrine liability from coverage.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing Seaway Motors as a party defendant and in refusing to remand the cases to state court.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the district judge committed clear error by dismissing the action sua sponte for defective jurisdictional allegations without allowing plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint.
-
-
The court held that a federal diversity suit for equitable relief concerning estate assets is permissible even with a pending state probate proceeding, as long as the state court does not have actual possession of the disputed property.
-
The court held that diversity jurisdiction was improperly manufactured by appointing a guardian solely to create federal court jurisdiction, and thus the action was properly dismissed.
-
420 F.2d 294·
2d Cir.·
1969-12-29
·cited 4×
The court held that the plaintiff's claims lacked sufficient factual support and jurisdictional basis to proceed.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Georgia's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the seizure of property moving in interstate commerce raised substantial federal questions.
-
The court held that the federal court lacked jurisdiction because the defendant failed to demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the defendant corporation.
-
398 F.2d 41·
6th Cir.·
1968-07-25
·cited 4×
A state condemnation proceeding is not removable to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) unless it can be clearly predicted that a formal expression of state law will inevitably deny a federal right specifically stated in terms of racial equality.
-
-
A federal court's statutory interpleader jurisdiction does not extend to enjoining suits against alleged tortfeasors, even when the insurer deposits policy limits.
-
The court held that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $10,000 jurisdictional minimum, exclusive of interest and costs.
-
The court held that the copyright notice placement was sufficient under the circumstances, and that the unfair competition claim required reconsideration in light of controlling precedent.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in decreeing specific performance of a settlement contract, finding jurisdiction valid and the contract enforceable despite an illegal provision.
-
319 F.2d 764·
9th Cir.·
1963-07-02
·cited 4×
The court held that the dismissal of the radiologist was proper due to lack of expert testimony showing negligence, and the jury's verdict for the general practitioner was supported by substantial evidence, affirming the lower court's judgments.
-
The court held that the district court has jurisdiction to determine the ownership of union dues checked off after a union split, even though the National Mediation Board has exclusive jurisdiction over representation disputes.
-
297 F.2d 28·
9th Cir.·
1961-11-06
·cited 4×
The court held that appeals taken before Alaska's statehood, which result in reversal, should be remanded to the state supreme court if federal jurisdiction would not have been proper under current law.
-
The federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction and dismiss the case, allowing state courts to address the issues, particularly when state law interpretation and injunctive relief are involved.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended petition correcting a misnomer related back to the original filing date, thus commencing the action within the statute of limitations.
-
The court held that the prior decision regarding the suability and service of process for the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund was correct, despite a modification in the legal rationale by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
-
236 F.2d 364·
1st Cir.·
1956-07-31
·cited 4×
The court held that arbitrators had jurisdiction over the claim that discharges were not for just cause under the contract, even if a refusal to bargain claim was also presented, as the latter may be within the NLRB's exclusive cognizance.
-
The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship because the plaintiffs had established domicile in the District of Columbia.
-
The court held that the jury's finding of total and permanent disability due to cancer caused by a traumatic injury was supported by substantial evidence, even if medical science was uncertain about the exact causation.
-
195 F.2d 338·
8th Cir.·
1952-04-02
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction was sufficiently alleged and evidenced, and the suit was not an impermissible collateral attack on a state court order.
-
The court held that the insurer, as a foreign corporation, could not prosecute a subrogation claim under Michigan law, and that the employer's claim lacked the jurisdictional amount because recovery was limited to compensation actually paid.
-
A trustee is entitled to maintain an interpleader action, and the court did not err in allowing attorneys' fees and costs.
-
The court held that retailers who paid overceiling prices in a blackmarketing conspiracy are in pari delicto with the wholesaler and cannot recover the full amounts paid, except for those who received no lumber.
-
The court held that federal jurisdiction was lacking because the amount in controversy did not exceed $3,000, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
-
The court held that a foreign corporation's designation of an agent for service of process in Texas does not constitute consent to venue for transitory actions that did not arise in Texas or relate to business conducted there.
-
The court held that individual claims against numerous defendants cannot be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional amount requirement in diversity cases.
-
The court held that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action barred by the statute of limitations and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict on diversity and consent.
-
A civil court cannot exercise equitable jurisdiction to protect a property right if the plaintiff has no legal or beneficial interest in that property.
-
The court held that the administrator, suing on an official bond for wrongful death, was a nominal party whose citizenship did not establish federal diversity jurisdiction when the real beneficiaries were citizens of the same state as the defendant.
-
The court held that the appellant's claim of lien priority was not supported, as Dougherty's consistent assertion of his royalty rights, despite variations in pleading, was known to appellant, and appellant could not claim to be misled.
-
The court struck plaintiff's disclosure statement for failing to properly identify his citizenship as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 3.03. The plaintiff stated only that he resides in Florida, which the court found insufficient; citizenship must be
-
The court, in a concurring opinion, addresses the dissent's arguments regarding the enforceability of a forum-selection clause in cruise ship passenger contracts. The concurrence clarifies that the federal Savings to Suitors Clause does not create an enforceable state court right
-
A foreign-chartered corporation with its principal place of business in the United States is considered both an alien and a citizen of that state for diversity jurisdiction purposes, thus destroying complete diversity when suing or being sued by another alien.
-
828 F. Supp. 940·
M.D. Fla.·
1993-08-02
·cited 3×
The court held that removal was improper because not all defendants consented and the attempted amendments did not cure the defect.
-
961 F.2d 1470·
9th Cir.·
1992-04-24
·cited 3×
The court held that the magistrate judge abused discretion by preventing the plaintiff from calling the defendant as a witness, and that the exclusion of evidence regarding two sets of books may have been an abuse of discretion.
-
881 F.2d 772·
9th Cir.·
1989-08-04
·cited 3×
The court held that the breach of contract claim was preempted by the Copyright Act because the oral agreement was not in writing and could not be severed. The fraud claim, however, was not preempted because it contained an 'extra element' of misrepresentation.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the probate exception, as the suit did not interfere with state probate proceedings.