661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
265 F.2d 768·
9th Cir.·
1959-03-10
·cited 54×
The court held that the defendant manufacturer did not have sufficient minimum contacts with California to be subject to personal jurisdiction there.
-
A federal court may refuse to exercise its declaratory judgment jurisdiction when a state court action involving the same parties and issues is already pending, especially if exercising jurisdiction would merely adjudicate defenses or encroach upon state court matters.
-
The court held that under Texas law, a defendant seeking indemnity or contribution from a third-party joint tortfeasor is not barred by the statute of limitations, even if the plaintiff's direct claim against the third party is time-barred.
-
541 F.2d 207·
8th Cir.·
1976-09-07
·cited 52×
The court held that summary judgment was improvidently granted because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the alleged oral contract and the applicability of the statute of frauds, requiring resolution at trial.
-
347 F.2d 194·
5th Cir.·
1965-05-25
·cited 52×
-
The court held that the principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction purposes is determined by the center of corporate activity and management, not solely by the location of director meetings or the 'nerve center'.
-
The court concurs in the result because the dismissal of the appeal leaves the district court's order in full force. The district court properly separated claims under the Investment Company Act from other claims where jurisdiction was not obtained.
-
A corporation's principal place of business is determined by its 'nerve center,' and if that center shifts to a state where a plaintiff is also a citizen, diversity jurisdiction is destroyed, even if the change resulted from a dispute over corporate control.
-
772 F.2d 534·
9th Cir.·
1985-09-24
·cited 48×
The court held that federal question jurisdiction was not present for claims turning solely on contract interpretation, but diversity jurisdiction was improperly declined based on abstention principles. The court reversed dismissal of diversity claims and remanded, while affirmin
-
644 F.2d 1361·
9th Cir.·
1981-05-11
·cited 48×
The Ninth Circuit held that 15 U.S.C. § 634(b)(1) grants district courts jurisdiction over suits against the SBA for money damages exceeding $10,000, reversing the dismissal of the SBA. However, it affirmed the dismissal of other defendants due to lack of diversity and pendent pa
-
585 F.2d 683·
4th Cir.·
1978-10-19
·cited 48×
The court held that appeals were timely because the district court never properly entered judgment on a separate document, and thus the time to appeal had not begun to run. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
-
The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its precedent rejecting pendent party jurisdiction, holding that an independent basis of federal jurisdiction is required for claims against additional parties under the FTCA. However, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of motions to ame
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing further discovery.
-
527 F.2d 653·
9th Cir.·
1975-08-06
·cited 48×
The court held that the contract provision for attorney fees and interest applied to the breach of warranty action and the award of inventory value was supported by evidence, but the 12% interest rate was not contractually agreed upon and should be the legal rate.
-
A state statute cannot prevent a plaintiff from accessing federal diversity jurisdiction to enforce a state-created right, as federal court jurisdiction is determined by federal law, not state legislative attempts to restrict it.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action because a right to some adjudication through class representation might exist, and relief could potentially exist against personally served individuals.
-
The court held that the amended petition related back to the original filing date, thus avoiding the statute of limitations, and that the defendant was incompetent to testify to an agreement contradicting the written loan documents.
-
577 F.2d 1256·
5th Cir.·
1978-08-10
·cited 47×
The court held that the Idaho Takeover Statute is preempted by the Williams Act and violates the Commerce Clause, and that personal jurisdiction over the Idaho Director of Finance was proper in Texas.
-
The court held that diversity jurisdiction exists and that the district court properly granted a preliminary injunction to a Canadian bankruptcy trustee seeking corporate records in New York.
-
The court held that the Warsaw Convention applies to military charter flights and that inadequate delivery of a passenger ticket renders the Convention's liability limitations inapplicable.
-
873 F.2d 1221·
9th Cir.·
1989-04-20
·cited 46×
The Ninth Circuit held that the district court correctly found diversity jurisdiction but erred in dismissing the case on comity grounds without requiring exhaustion of tribal remedies.
-
The court held that the appeals from interlocutory orders were either moot or could be reviewed as part of the appeal from the final judgment, and that the trial court did not err in entering default judgment against appellant Janney for his contumacious refusal to appear for dep
-
The court held that diversity jurisdiction is determined by the citizenship of named representatives in a class action against an unincorporated association, and that certain defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Alabama to establish personal jurisdiction.
-
The court held that a complaint alleging a fraudulent scheme to strip a company of assets, thereby disabling it from paying creditors, states a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, even if the specific misrepresentations are barred by the Statute of Frauds.
-
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction at the time of removal because the defendant failed to establish complete diversity. The court also noted disagreement with the majority's broad rule regarding Doe defendants.
-
The exercise of personal jurisdiction in Texas over the Alaska defendant is constitutionally permissible due to purposeful availment and foreseeable consequences in the forum state.
-
A federal court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties, even if the issue is raised after final judgment, and the court must dismiss the action.
-
The court held that minimal sales, even if profitable, do not constitute bona fide use to sustain trademark rights when the primary purpose is to reserve the mark and block competitors, and that res judicata may not apply to a dismissal for failure to prosecute in cases of contin
-
A valid defense to a claim does not, as a matter of legal certainty, preclude federal jurisdiction if the plaintiff's claim for the jurisdictional amount was made in good faith.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, as the Norris-LaGuardia Act was inapplicable and the jurisdictional question regarding diversity of citizenship was a substantial issue for the district court to determine.
-
The court held that the service of process on the defendant corporation was valid under New York law because the defendant was doing sufficient business in the state and the cause of action arose from those activities, and that the process server exercised due diligence.
-
722 F.2d 582·
9th Cir.·
1983-12-30
·cited 42×
The court held that federal question and diversity jurisdiction do not apply to suits against foreign states, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not waive Iran's immunity for tortious acts occurring outside the United States.
-
The court held that the assertion of a defense based on a severable visitation clause in a contract does not divest federal courts of diversity jurisdiction in a contract action, and the "domestic relations exception" does not bar such suits.
-
The court held that the dismissal of the complaint was proper due to lack of diversity jurisdiction and the failure to join indispensable parties, specifically a majority of the board of directors.
-
D.D.C.·
1976-12-30
·cited 41×
The court held that Trans-Bay is conditionally entitled to recover retained construction funds under equitable doctrines, reversing summary judgment for HUD and Advance.
-
343 F.2d 861·
5th Cir.·
1965-04-13
·cited 41×
Alabama's long-arm statute, Title 7, § 199(1), permits service of process on a foreign corporation for a tort arising from a single business transaction within the state, and such service comports with Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements.
-
Summary judgment is inappropriate when material facts are disputed and credibility must be assessed.
-
742 F.2d 1037·
7th Cir.·
1984-08-23
·cited 40×
The statute allowing magistrates to preside over and enter judgments in federal civil trials, even with party consent, violates Article III's guarantee of judicial independence.
-
688 F.2d 328·
5th Cir.·
1982-09-22
·cited 40×
Due process permits exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who commits a single tort, in whole or in part, within the forum state, if the defendant purposefully avails himself of the forum's laws.
-
The court held that the sale of 100% of a business's stock is not a "security" transaction under Rule 10b-5, but a presumption of entrepreneurship applies when acquiring over 50% of a corporation's stock, which can be rebutted.
-
A pendent party must independently satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, and a principal is generally not liable for the torts of an independent contractor unless the activity is inherently hazardous or the contractor was negligently selected.
-
576 F.2d 1072·
4th Cir.·
1978-05-22
·cited 40×
The court held that the jury instructions, taken as a whole, fairly and adequately stated the pertinent legal principles, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to give certain requested instructions.
-
The court held that the district court's dismissal order, conditioned on defendants waiving the statute of limitations and recognizing prior discovery, was a proper application of the manufactured diversity rule, but required reformation regarding time periods for compliance.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the pilot's actions constituted negligence per se as a matter of law.
-
The court held that the trial court misconstrued the burden of proof regarding accidental death under an insurance policy, requiring a remand for further findings. The court also affirmed the denial of a continuance and the striking of a jury demand.
-
The court held that federal courts sitting in a state cannot exercise jurisdiction over a foreign corporation unless the state has provided for such jurisdiction, absent specific federal statutory provision.
-
The court held that amendments to pleadings to properly allege diversity jurisdiction are permissible, and a statute of limitations defense is waived if not timely pleaded.
-
A reorganization court under Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act cannot issue process for service outside its territorial limits in a plenary suit against adverse claimants, even if the suit involves the debtor's property.
-
The court held that federal subject matter jurisdiction was lacking due to potential lack of diversity and the absence of a federal question on the face of the complaint. The case was remanded to the district court to verify jurisdictional facts.
-
532 F.2d 491·
5th Cir.·
1976-06-01
·cited 39×
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and failure to provide medical care, stated tenable claims under federal and state law, and should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage.