661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
694 F. Supp. 1542·
M.D. Fla.·
1988-09-07
·cited 3×
The court affirmed the magistrate's order, denying further discovery and holding that issues one, three, and five of the summary judgment motion should be resolved before extensive discovery, as they pertain to whether the statements were defamatory, capable of defamatory meaning
-
The court held that Dean Steel had sufficient minimum contacts with California to establish personal jurisdiction for the declaratory judgment action, but that the United States is immune from suit under FUSFSPA.
-
The court held that there was ample evidence to support the jury's verdict finding the defendants guilty of defrauding the plaintiffs and awarding damages.
-
757 F.2d 529·
2d Cir.·
1985-03-18
·cited 3×
The court held that a district court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to amend a complaint to drop non-diverse defendants solely to preserve diversity jurisdiction, absent prejudice to the remaining defendants.
-
724 F.2d 707·
8th Cir.·
1984-01-12
·cited 3×
The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction and venue, and did not err in granting a preliminary injunction to enforce restrictive covenants.
-
652 F.2d 340·
3d Cir.·
1981-06-26
·cited 3×
The court held that Publicker Industries, Inc. is directly liable under the contract for the sale of ceramic bells, and affirmed the district court's damage award with a slight modification for credits on outside sales.
-
497 F. Supp. 437·
S.D. Fla.·
1980-09-11
·cited 3×
A petition for removal that fails to allege the principal place of business of a corporate party may be amended after the expiration of the thirty-day removal period if the omission is a technical defect, not a missing essential allegation.
-
482 F. Supp. 788·
S.D. Fla.·
1980-01-11
·cited 3×
The court held that a federal court may enjoin state court proceedings to protect and effectuate its prior judgment compelling arbitration, even when that judgment is pending appeal, provided traditional equitable prerequisites are met.
-
The court held that a district court judge cannot issue an injunction that contradicts a prior, unreviewable remand order by another judge in the same court.
-
Federal courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus in an original proceeding, even if diversity jurisdiction exists, as such writs must be in aid of existing jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action, reversing the judgment.
-
The court held that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the employer under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction due to lack of diversity.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs must supplement their motion to remand by providing the citizenship of all members of the LLC, as the current information is insufficient to determine diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, finding subject-matter jurisdiction exists based on diversity of citizenship and affirming orders compelling discovery.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to join non-diverse defendants and remand the case to state court is denied because the claims against the proposed defendants were either not viable under state law or were premature.
-
710 F. Supp. 2d 1325·
S.D. Fla.·
2010-05-07
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff's fraud-based claims were barred by the statute of frauds and contradicted by loan documents, and that statutory claims were time-barred or inadequately pled.
-
Wiesenberg sued Costa Crociere for personal injuries sustained as a cruise ship passenger. The trial court dismissed based on res judicata, but the appellate court reversed that reasoning and affirmed the dismissal on the alternative ground that the forum selection clause in the
-
270 F. Supp. 2d 1357·
M.D. Fla.·
2003-06-26
·cited 2×
The court held that while 28 U.S.C. § 1367 abrogated the Zahn rule and unnamed plaintiffs' claims can be considered for diversity jurisdiction, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the unnamed plaintiff's actual claim for restitution exceeded the $75,000 amount in controvers
-
196 F. Supp. 2d 1233·
S.D. Fla.·
2001-12-17
·cited 2×
The court held that federal diversity jurisdiction cannot be predicated on the claim of an unnamed putative class member, nor can claims be aggregated under the common right exception in this case.
-
87 F. Supp. 2d 1278·
M.D. Fla.·
2000-02-28
·cited 2×
The court held that it had federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, but lacked personal jurisdiction over two defendants. The court denied dismissal for most claims but dismissed the mismanagement claim.
-
The court held that the defendant's statements were voluntarily made after a valid waiver of his Miranda rights, and therefore are admissible into evidence.
-
955 F. Supp. 120·
M.D. Fla.·
1997-02-20
·cited 2×
The court held that it had subject matter jurisdiction and would not dismiss the declaratory judgment action, as the pending state court action did not involve the same parties or issues, and exceptional circumstances for abstention were not present.
-
848 F. Supp. 987·
M.D. Fla.·
1994-04-04
·cited 2×
A plaintiff's offer of judgment, even if not filed with the state court, can constitute an 'other paper' that makes a case removable if it first reveals the amount in controversy meets federal diversity jurisdiction requirements.
-
982 F.2d 1153·
7th Cir.·
1993-01-05
·cited 2×
The court held that the driver was not a resident of his mother's household under the insurance policy, and therefore, coverage was not provided.
-
973 F.2d 507·
6th Cir.·
1992-09-08
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction and granted a preliminary injunction enforcing non-competition and confidentiality covenants, but erred in modifying the injunction based on an incorrect interpretation of Ohio law.
-
970 F.2d 1123·
2d Cir.·
1992-07-27
·cited 2×
The court did not rule on the merits but certified a question of New York law to the New York Court of Appeals.
-
961 F.2d 558·
5th Cir.·
1992-06-01
·cited 2×
The court held that a district court's remand order based on "the spirit of federalism" is not authorized by statute and is therefore reviewable by writ of mandamus, which the court granted to vacate the order.
-
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no triable issue of fact regarding the defendant's liability.
-
929 F.2d 472·
9th Cir.·
1991-03-25
·cited 2×
The court held that the insurance policy's pollution exclusion clause, including its limitations, unambiguously barred coverage for Hydro's styrene emissions, and therefore, the insurer had no duty to investigate the claim, precluding a breach of good faith claim.
-
The court held that attorney fees awarded under Florida common law for inequitable conduct are considered 'costs' and thus cannot be included in the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. However, the court found that the plaintiff's tort claim, involving additional de
-
The court held that it lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction due to a lack of complete diversity of citizenship, as the citizenship of a limited partnership is determined by the citizenship of all its partners.
-
The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.2 cannot be used to create diversity jurisdiction when an unincorporated association has jural status under state law. Therefore, the plaintiff could not amend its complaint to sue the association's members as a class.
-
891 F.2d 1097·
3d Cir.·
1989-12-19
·cited 2×
The Tax Injunction Act bars federal court jurisdiction over challenges to state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and New York provides such a remedy for the challenged tax.
-
887 F.2d 837·
7th Cir.·
1989-10-24
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in scheduling trial dates and that the plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest under Illinois law.
-
867 F.2d 586·
10th Cir.·
1989-02-10
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint because the proposed amendments were futile, and affirmed the dismissal of the appeal as frivolous, remanding for sanctions.
-
865 F.2d 353·
D.C. Cir.·
1989-01-13
·cited 2×
The court held that 35 U.S.C. § 293, as written, should be interpreted to allow suits concerning patent ownership, and that prior precedent Neidhart v. Neidhart S.A. was wrongly decided.
-
The court held that the domestic relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction did not apply to claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and interference with employment, nor to the enforcement of a state judgment for support arrearages.
-
The court held that for diversity jurisdiction purposes, an action is commenced on the date the federal complaint is filed, not when a state administrative claim is filed, even if the administrative filing tolls the statute of limitations.
-
The court held that diversity jurisdiction exists because the defendant's domicile is in New York, and even if he holds dual citizenship, his Lebanese citizenship would not be recognized for diversity purposes. The court also found the counter-counterclaim to be compulsory.
-
The Ninth Circuit held that the presence of Doe defendants, who were not dismissed, destroys diversity jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court, even if the case proceeded to judgment in federal court.
-
834 F.2d 713·
8th Cir.·
1987-12-09
·cited 2×
The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 governs the commencement date of the action, making the new state statute requiring an expert affidavit inapplicable.
-
816 F.2d 746·
D.C. Cir.·
1987-04-17
·cited 2×
Service of process on a federal official is insufficient if the action substantively implicates the official's duties, even if framed as a private suit, and service on the United States is also required under Rule 4(d)(5).
-
797 F.2d 280·
6th Cir.·
1986-07-25
·cited 2×
The dissenting judge believes the district court should not have dismissed the case without bankruptcy court approval of the settlement, given the parties' prior positions and the creditors' interests.
-
The court held that subject matter jurisdiction under the Price-Anderson Act's grant for extraordinary nuclear occurrences requires a prior determination by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and that claims do not "arise under" the Act for federal jurisdiction purposes if
-
649 F. Supp. 106·
M.D. Fla.·
1985-07-08
·cited 2×
The court held that the parties agreed, through their conduct and banking customs, that the Uniform Rules of Collection (URC) would govern their duties regarding the first bill of exchange, and that the bills of exchange qualified as documentary drafts under the UCC.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to realign parties, as their true interests were aligned with the plaintiff, destroying complete diversity.
-
722 F.2d 253·
5th Cir.·
1984-01-12
·cited 2×
A contractual disclaimer of consequential damages under Illinois law is broad enough to cover damages to third-party property caused by the defendant's negligence, even if not explicitly mentioning negligence.
-
690 F.2d 1·
1st Cir.·
1982-06-22
·cited 2×
The court held that the subordination agreement and underlying financing arrangement constituted a transaction involving banking within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. § 632, thus conferring federal jurisdiction.
-
The court held that removal was improper because the defendant corporation was a citizen of the forum state, and the claims were not separate and independent, nor did the corporation's dissolution alter this.
-
An oral employment contract for a period exceeding one year is unenforceable under the Texas Statute of Frauds, and promissory estoppel does not apply unless there is a promise to reduce the agreement to writing and egregious circumstances.