661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
385 F.2d 491·
3d Cir.·
1967-11-15
·cited 39×
The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and that the complaints failed to state a cause of action against the defendants.
-
344 F.2d 486·
9th Cir.·
1965-04-16
·cited 39×
The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved the internal affairs of the Navajo Tribe, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Navajo Tribal Court.
-
The court held that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because complete diversity was likely absent, as the plaintiffs may have been citizens of Colorado, and the defendant corporation, through its subsidiary, also had Colorado citizenship.
-
The court held that while the denial of a temporary restraining order was proper due to lack of demonstrated jurisdiction, the case should not have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without affording the plaintiff an opportunity for discovery.
-
A naturalized U.S. citizen domiciled abroad, who also holds citizenship in a foreign state, cannot invoke alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) if the opposing party is a U.S. citizen domiciled in the same state, due to the complete diversity rule.
-
The court held that the equitable estoppel claims were barred by Washington's three-year statute of limitations and that the appellants had waived their right to challenge the removal of the case to federal court.
-
576 F.2d 453·
2d Cir.·
1978-05-10
·cited 38×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants acted under color of state law to deprive him of constitutional rights, or that they conspired with the requisite discriminatory animus for § 1985 claims.
-
493 F.2d 784·
5th Cir.·
1974-05-06
·cited 38×
The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction over the claims against state officials, and thus pendent jurisdiction over related state law claims, affirming the district court's decision.
-
534 F.2d 24·
2d Cir.·
1976-04-06
·cited 37×
The court held that the plaintiff's claims under treaties and the law of nations failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted in U.S. District Court.
-
413 F.2d 9·
5th Cir.·
1969-06-27
·cited 37×
The court held that the defendant railroad company was liable for injuries caused by furnishing a defective hopper car, as its negligence in failing to discover and repair the insecurely welded channel iron was a proximate cause of the accident.
-
The court held that allegations of fraud and the existence of state segregation laws, without more, do not state a federal cause of action cognizable in federal court absent diversity jurisdiction.
-
407 F.2d 136·
9th Cir.·
1969-02-13
·cited 36×
The court held that a federal court lacks jurisdiction over a loss of consortium claim filed by a spouse when that claim, though arising from the same incident, does not independently meet the minimum amount in controversy requirement and cannot be aggregated with the other spous
-
The court held that an appeal from an order vacating a judgment is interlocutory and non-appealable, and that partial assignees are not necessarily indispensable parties whose joinder is required to maintain diversity jurisdiction.
-
-
The court held that federal courts must apply state law to determine the capacity of unincorporated associations to sue or be sued in diversity cases, and that Pennsylvania law prohibits class actions by or against such associations, thus requiring dismissal for lack of diversity
-
A federal court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even on its own initiative, if the pleadings do not affirmatively establish jurisdiction, particularly when fictitious defendants are used to obscure citizenship.
-
The court held that even if a contract can be validly formed orally, the alleged contract was not binding because it was not officially accepted by the Union, and furthermore, it was barred by the Ohio Statute of Frauds as it was not to be performed within one year.
-
179 F.2d 147·
5th Cir.·
1950-01-10
·cited 36×
A single legatee cannot sue alone to cancel deeds and recover property for an estate when other legatees and the estate representative are indispensable parties whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
-
837 F.2d 247·
6th Cir.·
1988-01-19
·cited 35×
The court should review legal conclusions under Rule 11 de novo, not just for abuse of discretion.
-
739 F.2d 812·
2d Cir.·
1984-07-17
·cited 35×
The court held that the trial court erred in setting aside the jury's verdict finding a joint venture between Ebker and Nygard, and that the jury's verdict on the counterclaim was not clearly erroneous.
-
The court held that federal courts can enforce state custody decrees and that a party should not be forced to waive injunctive relief to proceed in federal court.
-
Local Rule 5 of the District of Puerto Rico, requiring nondomiciliary plaintiffs to post security for costs, is not per se unconstitutional or inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provided it is applied judiciously.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus federal jurisdiction was lacking.
-
The court held that the "clear and convincing evidence" standard and the requirement for independent judicial determination of actual malice do not apply at the summary judgment stage in public figure libel cases. The court also rejected the "libel-proof" plaintiff doctrine.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in finding Country Quality Meats, Inc.'s principal place of business was Georgia, and that plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint to properly allege jurisdiction.
-
The court vacated the district court's disqualification order and remanded for reconsideration of subject matter jurisdiction and the impact of a recent state court decision on the disqualification issue.
-
Federal courts should abstain from hearing cases related to divorce and alimony, even if they involve contract or property disputes, due to comity and sound federal policy.
-
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support findings of proximate causation, breach of implied warranty, and negligence.
-
A district court has the power to dismiss diversity suits where it is clear to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional minimum amount.
-
A case removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction must affirmatively demonstrate the jurisdictional amount at the time of removal; a plaintiff's complaint stating damages "in excess of $5,000" does not meet the federal requirement of exceeding $10,000.
-
A federal court has the power to dismiss a non-diverse, dispensable defendant to retain diversity jurisdiction, and failure to do so when no prejudice results is an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that a district court cannot enforce a settlement agreement if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the parties' consent or conduct.
-
760 F.2d 1474·
7th Cir.·
1985-04-25
·cited 33×
The court held that a third-party beneficiary claim under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act is not available, as Congress intended the administrative scheme to be the sole avenue of redress.
-
The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on attorney misconduct, correctly denied judgment n.o.v. for failure to prove scienter, and lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration of state claims a
-
670 F.2d 134·
9th Cir.·
1982-02-26
·cited 33×
The court held that the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction applies, divesting federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over disputes concerning marital status.
-
The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper and the exclusion of expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
-
366 F.2d 690·
5th Cir.·
1966-09-29
·cited 33×
The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction and venue over Time, Inc. because its business activities in Louisiana established sufficient minimum contacts and met statutory requirements for service of process and venue.
-
A federal court has jurisdiction over a tort action between former spouses alleging interference with visitation rights, as it does not fall under the domestic relations exception or warrant abstention.
-
721 F.2d 1067·
7th Cir.·
1983-10-26
·cited 32×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute and for lack of jurisdiction, as the dismissal was too severe a sanction given the circumstances.
-
The court held that the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction does not bar claims for torts like malicious prosecution or arson, even if arising from a marital dispute, and that summary judgment was improperly granted where genuine issues of material fact existed
-
598 F.2d 1050·
7th Cir.·
1979-01-16
·cited 32×
The court held that Count III of the third-party complaint was properly dismissed because it failed to meet the requirements for a third-party claim or a counterclaim, lacked standing, and presented jurisdictional issues.
-
524 F.2d 275·
2d Cir.·
1975-10-14
·cited 32×
The court held that the defendants, as purchasers of a debenture, owed no fiduciary duty to the corporation under New York law and that the corporation and its shareholders lacked standing or failed to state a claim under federal securities laws for alleged non-disclosure of mark
-
442 F.2d 394·
5th Cir.·
1971-04-22
·cited 32×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Charles H. Glueck an indispensable party and dismissing the action for lack of complete diversity.
-
-
The court held that the record presented sufficient doubt regarding the plaintiff's principal place of business to warrant a further factual inquiry by the district court to determine if diversity jurisdiction was properly established.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege a claim under Arkansas law or the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, as the alleged conspiracy did not substantially and directly restrain interstate commerce.
-
The court held that parties may amend pleadings to establish diversity jurisdiction, and that the admission of evidence regarding another bridge's surface was not prejudicial error.
-
The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to grant interpleader and that the order continuing the injunction was appealable.
-
The court held that the shipper's failure to file a written claim with the carrier, as required by the bill of lading, barred recovery from the carrier, and that the insurance policy covered the loss because it occurred after the goods were delivered into the custody of a public
-
The court held that the venue statute for stockholder derivative suits requires diversity of citizenship between the injured corporation and the defendants for the special venue provision to apply. It also held that corporate defendants waived improper venue objections by not rai