Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332)

661 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 931 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Temple Hoyne Buell v. Sears
  321 F.2d 468· 10th Cir.· 1963-07-29 ·cited 26×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court affirmed the lower court's judgment quieting title, but conditioned the affirmance on the defendant amending its removal petition to properly allege diversity jurisdiction.
• Dale Benz, Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading
  303 F.2d 80· 9th Cir.· 1962-05-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the surety is liable for the actual cost of completing the subcontract plus 10% and attorneys' fees, but not for overhead or a disproportionate set-off for equipment use. The lower court's findings were inadequate, and the court re-calculated damages on appeal
• Saier v. State BAR OF Mich. & The Supreme Court of The State of Mich.
  293 F.2d 756· 6th Cir.· 1961-08-04 ·cited 26×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the appellant was not deprived of any right secured by the Constitution or federal law, and therefore, his complaint failed to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
• Texaco-Cities Serv. Pipe Line Co. & Clell Hedgpeth & Frank Stewart v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  283 F.2d 144· 8th Cir.· 1960-10-20 ·cited 26×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that allegations of residence are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction, but defective allegations may be amended.
• Gerr v. Emrick
  283 F.2d 293· 3d Cir.· 1960-10-10 ·cited 26×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is not immune from negligence suits and can be sued in federal court, as it is considered a separate entity from the Commonwealth and not entitled to sovereign immunity.
• O'Toole v. United States
  206 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1953-08-10 ·cited 26×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the torts of a member of the District of Columbia National Guard during peacetime training because the Guard is subject to significant federal control and presidential command.
• Jacobson v. New York
  206 F.2d 153· 1st Cir.· 1953-07-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of federal question jurisdiction, as the Safety Appliance Acts do not create a private right of action for passengers, and diversity jurisdiction was absent.
• Jaffe v. Philadelphia & W. R. Co.
  180 F.2d 1010· 3d Cir.· 1950-03-15 ·cited 26×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the appointment of an administratrix solely to create diversity jurisdiction is permissible if the appointment is valid under state law and the administratrix is the real party in interest. The court also affirmed the lower court's findings of no negligence an
• Duda v. Sterling MFG. Co.
  178 F.2d 428· 8th Cir.· 1949-11-25 ·cited 26×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the bankruptcy court lacked summary jurisdiction over pre-reorganization claims denied by the debtor, which required a plenary trial with a jury. However, claims arising from post-reorganization transfers without court authority were within summary jurisdictio
• Givens v. Moll
  177 F.2d 765· 5th Cir.· 1949-11-15 ·cited 26×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the complaint failed to establish federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship or a federal question, and thus the dismissal was proper.
• Sheppard v. Atl. States GAS Co. OF Pa.
  167 F.2d 841· 3d Cir.· 1948-04-19 ·cited 26×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the dismissal of the third-party complaint based on a covenant not to sue was premature, and the third-party claim was ancillary to the main action, justifying jurisdiction despite lack of diversity.
• Strickland v. Peters
  120 F.2d 53· 5th Cir.· 1941-05-15 ·cited 26×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction to determine the validity of wills, as this power is exclusively vested in the state probate court, but it can determine the validity of deeds and protect the estate through a receiver if necessary.
• Johnson v. Riverland Levee Dist.
  117 F.2d 711· 8th Cir.· 1941-02-14 ·cited 26×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the federal court lacked jurisdiction due to destroyed diversity of citizenship and the existence of an adequate remedy at law under Missouri statutes, precluding equitable relief.
• Kaikilani Robinson Walsh v. Centeio
  692 F.2d 1239· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 25×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The Ninth Circuit held that the abuse of discretion standard applies to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to join indispensable parties.
• U-Haul Int'l, Inc. v. Jartran, Inc.
  681 F.2d 1159· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-21 ·cited 25×
  Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act is not limited to 'palming off' and applies to false advertising of a company's own goods and services.
• Hill v. Rolleri
  615 F.2d 886· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court retained jurisdiction over the third-party claim after the main action settled and that evidentiary rulings were either harmless error or within the trial court's discretion.
• Gaines v. Sunray OIL Co.
  539 F.2d 1136· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-22 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the interpleader action as to The Executive Associates because their claim was unrelated to the interpleaded fund, and consequently, Sunray's cross-claim against them was also properly dismissed.
• Nunn v. Feltinton
  294 F.2d 450· 5th Cir.· 1961-09-15 ·cited 25×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The joinder of formal or unnecessary parties, such as Illinois stockholders, does not defeat federal diversity jurisdiction when a receiver, whose citizenship is diverse from the opposing party, is the real party in interest representing the dissolved corporation's assets.
• Matthies v. Seymour Mfg. Co.
  270 F.2d 365· 2d Cir.· 1959-09-09 ·cited 25×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The dissenting judge would hold that a beneficiary of trusts holding corporate stock has standing to bring a shareholder derivative action, even if the trustees have not sued.
• Bank Leumi Le-Israel v. LEE
  928 F.2d 232· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment but vacated the award of attorneys' fees, remanding for recalculation.
• Kotler v. The Am. Tobacco Co.
  926 F.2d 1217· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that post-1965 misrepresentation claims were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and that design defect claims under Massachusetts law require proof of a feasible safer alternative design. The court also found no reversible error in the
• Quaker State OIL Ref. Corp. v. Garrity OIL Co., Inc.
  884 F.2d 1510· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that summary judgment was appropriate for the plaintiff on most claims and counterclaims, and that the district court did not err in applying Massachusetts prejudgment interest law or denying leave to amend.
• Laborers Local 938 Joint Health & Welf. Tr. Fund v. B.R. Starnes Co. OF Fla.
  827 F.2d 1454· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 24×
  Non-signatory subcontractors and sureties are not employers under ERISA, precluding federal subject matter jurisdiction for claims against them for a signatory's failure to make benefit contributions. The district court did not err in denying attorneys' fees and costs.
• Gulf States Utils. Co. v. Ala. Power Co.
  824 F.2d 1465· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court has jurisdiction over GSU's claims not preempted by the Federal Power Act, did not abuse its discretion in allowing GSU to deposit disputed funds under Rule 67, but erred in denying the LPSC's motion to intervene.
• Loss v. Rayford T. Blankenship
  673 F.2d 942· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-12 ·cited 24×
  Dismissal of the LMRA claim was proper because the defendant was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement, but the district court erred in dismissing the tortious interference claim without considering diversity jurisdiction.
• Corrinne Sutter v. Pitts
  639 F.2d 842· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-11 ·cited 24×·via Domestic Relations Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  The federal court properly abstained from hearing a civil rights claim that was essentially a dispute over child custody, as such matters fall under the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction.
• Medlin v. Local 1069 OF the United Auto. Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers OF Am. (UAW). Medlin
  620 F.2d 957· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-22 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because no federal question was presented, and diversity jurisdiction was not established. Therefore, the judgment was vacated and the case remanded to state court.
• Prescription Plan Serv. Corp. v. Franco
  552 F.2d 493· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the federal question claim but erred in dismissing the diversity claim, as the non-diverse trustees were not indispensable parties and leave to amend should be granted.
• Local 1498 v. Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps.
  522 F.2d 486· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) does not apply to unions composed exclusively of federal government employees, and therefore, federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims brought under the LMRDA against such unions and their officers.
• Baer v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n
  503 F.2d 393· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the defendant, an unincorporated inter-insurance exchange, is considered a citizen of every state in which it has members, and the record did not negate the possibility that it had members in the pl
• Hancock Fin. Corp. v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.
  492 F.2d 1325· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the FSLIC's actions as receiver for a state-chartered institution, involving only stockholder rights under state law, were expressly barred from federal court by statute.
• Mina Wright v. Yackley
  459 F.2d 287· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-20 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that Idaho's long-arm statute did not provide jurisdiction over a South Dakota doctor for alleged malpractice occurring in South Dakota, even though the doctor mailed prescription copies to an Idaho resident.
• Kane v. The Ford Motor Co.
  450 F.2d 315· 3d Cir.· 1971-11-11 ·cited 24×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a service letter as evidence because it was irrelevant to the plaintiff's theory of the case.
• Phoenix Sav. & Loan, Inc. v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  381 F.2d 245· 4th Cir.· 1967-07-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the alleged wrongdoers were employees covered by the bond and whether their knowledge of fraudulent acts was imputable to the corporation.
• Tromza v. Tecumseh Prods. Co.
  378 F.2d 601· 3d Cir.· 1967-06-05 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The judgment in favor of Tecumseh on Marquette's cross-claim is reversed, and final judgment is to be entered in favor of Marquette.
• Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Wagner
  367 F.2d 866· 8th Cir.· 1966-11-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper and that under Nebraska law, the omnibus statute applied broadly to insurance policies, entitling the driver to full coverage under the owner's policy, not limited by financial responsibility act minimums.
• Helmsley v. City OF Detroit
  320 F.2d 476· 6th Cir.· 1963-07-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because Michigan law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging ad valorem tax assessments.
• Ricciuti v. Voltarc Tubes, Inc.
  277 F.2d 809· 2d Cir.· 1960-04-01 ·cited 24×
  The statute of limitations for a latent disease begins to run when the disease is diagnosed, not when the exposure or act causing it occurred, unless the plaintiff could have reasonably discovered the injury earlier.
• McPHERSON v. Gerrit Hoffman
  275 F.2d 466· 6th Cir.· 1960-02-25 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the third-party complaint did not state a valid claim for indemnity and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the third-party defendants. The court also found that certain jury instructions were inadequate and that contributory negligence should hav
• Lowry v. The Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers
  259 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1958-09-22 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  Federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all parties on each side, and an unincorporated association's citizenship is determined by its members, not its entity status.
• Lowe v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. OF LOS Angeles Cnty.
  222 F.2d 258· 9th Cir.· 1955-04-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, as a claim arising under the Fourteenth Amendment provides a basis for federal question jurisdiction.
• The Walmac Co., Inc. v. Isaacs
  220 F.2d 108· 1st Cir.· 1955-03-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court had federal jurisdiction over the interpleader action based on ancillary jurisdiction, even though the plaintiff and one claimant were co-citizens, and affirmed the denial of injunctive relief, finding no abuse of discretion on the record.
• Austin v. Texas-Ohio GAS Co.
  218 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1955-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction and granted a preliminary injunction in an interpleader action, even though the plaintiff did not deposit all disputed shares into court.
• Broady v. Ill. Cent. R. Co.
  191 F.2d 73· 7th Cir.· 1951-07-25 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the employee's claims for reinstatement and back wages, as these disputes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railway Adjustment Board or require diversity of citizenship for federal court adjudication.
• Weaver v. Marcus
  165 F.2d 862· 4th Cir.· 1948-01-31 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  A district court's denial of a motion to dismiss a party to preserve diversity jurisdiction is reversible error if based on a misconception of law regarding partnership liability.
• Crabb v. Welden Bros.
  164 F.2d 797· 8th Cir.· 1947-12-01 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that employees working on the original construction of the Alcan Highway were not engaged in interstate commerce for FLSA purposes, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over claims based on Executive Order 9240.
• Chidester v. City OF Newark
  162 F.2d 598· 3d Cir.· 1947-06-19 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that heirs of a grantor are not indispensable parties in an ejectment action if their interests are not joint and would not be affected by the judgment, and that deeds with ambiguous descriptions are locatable with extrinsic evidence under New Jersey law.
• Spurgeon v. Mission State Bank
  151 F.2d 702· 8th Cir.· 1945-11-06 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  An emancipated minor, capable of exercising discretion, can acquire a domicile of choice, and the federal court had jurisdiction based on the minor's Kansas domicile.
• King v. Wall & Beaver St. Corp.
  145 F.2d 377· D.C. Cir.· 1944-10-16 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that a derivative action could not be maintained in the District of Columbia against individuals domiciled elsewhere, even if temporarily present, if the indispensable corporate party could not be properly served within the court's jurisdiction.
• Alderman v. Elgin
  125 F.2d 971· 7th Cir.· 1942-02-10 ·cited 24×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  An appellate court cannot permit amendments to cure jurisdictional defects; such amendments must be made in the trial court. Federal jurisdiction requires diversity of citizenship and sufficient amount in controversy for all plaintiffs.