661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
631 F.2d 131·
9th Cir.·
1980-10-23
·cited 2×
The court held that Symons is liable for its subsidiary's actions and that Glacier is the real party in interest for the full amount of the loss, despite partial reimbursement from reinsurers.
-
602 F.2d 1309·
9th Cir.·
1979-05-23
·cited 2×
The dissenting judge believes the district court properly interpreted the insurance contract's exclusion clause as ambiguous, and therefore coverage should be afforded to the plaintiff.
-
The court held that the trial court's determination of diversity of citizenship was not clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the judgment.
-
579 F.2d 1175·
9th Cir.·
1978-08-11
·cited 2×
A seller who repossesses goods after a buyer defaults on payment, and fails to provide notice of resale as required by Cal.Comm.Code § 9504, forfeits the right to recover any deficiency from the buyer.
-
A defendant's admission of partial liability does not defeat federal diversity jurisdiction if the amount claimed by the plaintiff in good faith exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
-
539 F.2d 1385·
5th Cir.·
1976-10-12
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff stated a claim under the Consumer Credit Protection Act and that the libel claim should be reconsidered by the district court.
-
The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged an amount in controversy to establish federal jurisdiction, even if some damages accrued after filing.
-
The court held that the defendant had probable cause as a matter of law to detain the plaintiff and initiate prosecution, and therefore the District Court erred in not directing a verdict for the defendant.
-
The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans is not immune from suit in tort as a matter of Louisiana state law, and thus cannot assert sovereign immunity in federal court.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the warning on the adhesive can was insufficient to inform the plaintiff of the specific risk of explosion, making the question of contributory negligence a jury issue.
-
465 F.2d 420·
10th Cir.·
1972-07-27
·cited 2×
The court held that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to review the annexation of land under state law, even if federal property was peripherally involved.
-
The court held that the trial court erred by not submitting the affirmative defense of volenti non fit injuria to the jury.
-
443 F.2d 89·
2d Cir.·
1971-05-05
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the Vermont 'slow speed' statute or the federal railroad crossing regulation, as they were inapplicable to the facts.
-
431 F.2d 1089·
8th Cir.·
1970-09-22
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the claim involved property rights rather than personal liberties.
-
409 F.2d 619·
6th Cir.·
1969-04-10
·cited 2×
A plaintiff's good faith claim for an amount exceeding the jurisdictional threshold is sufficient to establish jurisdiction, even if subsequent evidence reveals the actual amount is less, unless it's a legal certainty from the outset that the plaintiff cannot recover the claimed
-
The court held that the trial court's findings of conditional delivery and attempted testamentary disposition were supported by evidence, and that indispensable parties were properly identified, thus affirming the judgment.
-
The court held that a cross claim lacking independent jurisdictional grounds and not being ancillary to the main action must be dismissed.
-
-
The court held that the Oklahoma Deadman's Statute barred the appellee's testimony and that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding of a gift.
-
The court held that diversity jurisdiction existed despite an initial omission in the pleadings, and affirmed the lower court's decision.
-
377 F.2d 733·
10th Cir.·
1967-05-17
·cited 2×
The court held that the defendants acquired no rights in the plaintiff's land by virtue of Mexican law, grant, dedication, or common prescription, and that individual claims of prescription or adverse possession also failed.
-
373 F.2d 579·
2d Cir.·
1967-02-27
·cited 2×
The court held that the order transferring the case from the law side to the admiralty side, eliminating a jury trial, was not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
368 F.2d 405·
9th Cir.·
1966-11-07
·cited 2×
The court held that the insured's intent and actions, demonstrating dominion and control over a vehicle, established 'ownership' for insurance purposes, even if legal title transfer was incomplete under state statute.
-
363 F.2d 582·
6th Cir.·
1966-07-20
·cited 2×
A federal court has jurisdiction over a suit for just compensation for land taken by a county, even if a state condemnation proceeding is pending, if the county knew of the plaintiffs' equitable interest but failed to join them as parties.
-
359 F.2d 840·
7th Cir.·
1966-04-06
·cited 2×
The court held that future insurance benefits cannot be used to meet the jurisdictional amount in diversity actions unless the validity of the policy itself is in dispute.
-
The court held that Albert J. Doig was an indispensable party to the declaratory judgment action concerning the supersedeas bond, and the failure to join him required dismissal of the action due to lack of diversity jurisdiction.
-
The dissenting opinion argues that the tractor-trailer's speed was not the proximate cause of the collision and that the bus driver's failure to keep a proper lookout was the sole cause.
-
The court held that an unincorporated labor union is not a citizen for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and its citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its individual members.
-
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for a declaratory judgment because the claims were moot and no facts were alleged to support a declaration that the conviction was null and void.
-
The court held that the action was prematurely brought and the district court lacked jurisdiction for the unfair competition claim due to lack of diversity.
-
The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment because jurisdiction was lacking due to no diversity of citizenship and the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the cause of action.
-
325 F.2d 134·
6th Cir.·
1963-12-09
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial judge did not err in taking certain negligence claims from the jury and that procedural objections were not properly preserved for appeal.
-
The United States and the Commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration are proper parties to sue and federal courts have jurisdiction over claims involving the National Housing Act, even if the corporations involved are organized under state law and lack diversity.
-
The court held that a motion under F.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) does not toll the time for taking an appeal, and the appeal was untimely.
-
The court held that the action was barred by Oregon's statute of limitations, as the borrowing statute applies the foreign statute of limitations and its tolling provisions, but the forum's statute of limitations provides an ultimate limit.
-
The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely filed.
-
The court held that the complaint's allegations of residence were insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction, but allowed for amendment to cure this defect.
-
The court held that the complaint presented no substantial federal question, and thus the district court properly dismissed the action.
-
The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not grant jurisdiction to entertain an action against the United States and an individual defendant as joint tort-feasors where diversity of citizenship is lacking.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claims presented did not arise under federal law.
-
The court held that the prior order fully relinquished the district court's caretaker jurisdiction, and the current suit failed to establish diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that a tort committed on land, even on a U.S. possession, is not an admiralty tort, and the district court lacked jurisdiction.
-
246 F.2d 765·
1st Cir.·
1957-07-01
·cited 2×
The court held that the Massachusetts 'Sunday statute' extends the one-year limitations period when the anniversary of the cause of action falls on a Sunday, allowing the complaint filed on the next business day to be timely. The court also held that the 'Sunday statute' supersed
-
The New York statute allowing recovery of expenses for directors sued for misconduct is not controlling in a federal bankruptcy reorganization proceeding; allowances must be governed by Chapter 10 of the Bankruptcy Act.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for all property claimed, as plaintiffs only proved prima facie title to specific sections against the defendant, who claimed no title. The judgment was reformed to reflect ownership only of those sections.
-
The court held that the dismissal of the suit against King was proper due to insufficient pleaded facts, and the dismissal against the bank was proper for failure to provide security for costs.
-
The court held that federal jurisdiction was lacking because the parties were not diverse after realignment and the claims did not properly invoke federal law, and equity generally does not enjoin criminal prosecutions.
-
The court held that the claims of stockholders in a spurious class action cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal court.
-
The court held that the trustee's allegations were insufficient to establish jurisdiction under Section 67 of the Bankruptcy Act, but jurisdiction existed under Section 23(b) because the defendant consented to suit in the district court.
-
The court held that the January 6, 1950 order, which adopted a Special Master's report in lieu of a decree, was not a final, appealable order because it did not contain an order of any kind and violated Rule 54(a).