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

• Veltmann v. Walpole Pharmacy, Inc.
  928 F. Supp. 1161· M.D. Fla.· 1996-06-10 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed because they lacked standing, their claims were time-barred, and they failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Giardina v. Adele Fontana
  733 F.2d 1047· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 23×·via Probate Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  The district court erred in abstaining from exercising diversity jurisdiction over a claim for rescission of an assignment procured by fraud and undue influence, as the claim did not fall within the probate exception and did not present exceptional circumstances warranting absten
• Vareka Invs., N.V. v. Am. Inv. Props., Inc.
  724 F.2d 907· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and correctly granted summary judgment on liability and awarded damages, affirming the lower court's decision.
• R.W. Murray Co. v. Shatterproof Glass Corp.
  697 F.2d 818· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-11 ·cited 23×
  The court held that express warranties with explicit time periods extending to future performance accrue when the breach is discovered or should have been discovered, not at delivery, and that negligence claims for economic loss are generally barred when an adequate warranty reme
• Triangle Underwriters, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
  604 F.2d 737· 2d Cir.· 1979-07-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the contract claims were time-barred under the UCC's four-year statute of limitations, but one fraud claim (fraud in the inducement) was not time-barred and could proceed.
• Milligan v. Anderson
  522 F.2d 1202· 10th Cir.· 1975-09-24 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendant Anderson was not an indispensable party, and therefore the trial court erred in dismissing the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction over the defendant Cabeen.
• Frazier v. Ala. Motor Club, Inc.
  349 F.2d 456· 5th Cir.· 1965-08-09 ·cited 23×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  A corporation is 'doing business' in a judicial district for venue purposes if its activities there are continuous and systematic, even if it does not solicit business or have offices there, especially when its principal place of business and management are located in that distri
• Berkowitz v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp.
  303 F.2d 585· 3d Cir.· 1962-05-31 ·cited 23×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the lower court erred by dismissing the case on the merits without first determining the crucial issue of diversity jurisdiction.
• Troup v. McCART
  238 F.2d 289· 5th Cir.· 1956-11-14 ·cited 23×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the lower court correctly dismissed the action for lack of federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff's individual claim did not meet the $3,000 threshold and the action was not a 'true' class action allowing for aggregation of claims.
• Republic OF China v. Am. Express Co., Inc.
  195 F.2d 230· 2d Cir.· 1952-02-04 ·cited 23×
• Tejas Dev. Co. v. McGOUGH Bros.
  165 F.2d 276· 5th Cir.· 1947-12-30 ·cited 23×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the federal Arbitration Act does not govern state law contracts, and that arbitration awards can be invalidated by arbitrator misconduct or by a party's revocation of the submission before an award is made.
• Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
  372 F. Supp. 2d 1344· S.D. Fla.· 2005-05-18 ·cited 22×
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion in part, striking certain affirmative defenses and a set-off claim, and awarded attorney's fees and sanctions against Exxon.
• Shaver v. F.W. Woolworth Co.
  840 F.2d 1361· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 22×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The dissenting judge argued that the majority's novel res judicata theory was unsupported and raised significant federalism concerns, and that summary judgment on the merits was inappropriate.
• Anand Prakash v. Am. Univ.
  727 F.2d 1174· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 22×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court erred in invalidating the minimum wage requirement for FLSA professional exemptions and in dismissing the case on diversity grounds without an evidentiary hearing. Pendent jurisdiction exists for the local law claims.
• Tuvia Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Nat'l Union OF Hosp. & Health Care Emps., A Div. OF Rwdsu, AFL-CIO
  717 F.2d 726· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an employer lacks standing to sue under ERISA section 1132 and cannot sue employee benefit funds as third-party beneficiaries under LMRA section 301.
• Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co. & Halliburton Co.
  688 F.2d 256· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-16 ·cited 22×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court granted appellants leave to amend their pleadings to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, remanding the case for that purpose.
• Mich. Tech Fund v. Century Nat'l Bank OF Broward
  680 F.2d 736· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 22×·via Probate Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over claims seeking interpretation of a will, reformation of a mortgage, and adjudication of contract breaches, even when a state probate proceeding is pending, as long as the federal court does not interfere with the probate proceedings
• Acton Co. v. Bachman Foods, Inc.
  668 F.2d 76· 1st Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Acton, as an indispensable party whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction, could not be joined, and therefore the action should be dismissed under Rule 19(b).
• Wis. Elec. Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Pennant Prods., Inc.
  619 F.2d 676· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 22×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  Personal jurisdiction exists over the defendant because its agents conducted activities within Wisconsin related to the contract, distinguishing it from prior precedent.
• Helzberg's Diamond Shops, Inc. v. Valley W. DES Moines Shopping Ctr., Inc.
  564 F.2d 816· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a party is not indispensable to an action concerning one contract merely because its separate contract rights may be affected by the outcome, and that the injunction's terms were sufficiently specific.
• Raymond C. Rieser for the Estate and Personal Representative of Rebecca A. Rieser v. Dist. OF Columbia
  563 F.2d 462· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-15 ·cited 22×
• The Oneida Indian Nation OF NEW York State v. The Cnty. OF Oneida
  464 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 22×
  The court should interpret "arising under" jurisdiction broadly for Indian tribes under 28 U.S.C. § 1362, allowing federal court adjudication of treaty-based claims.
• Esposito v. Emery
  402 F.2d 878· 3d Cir.· 1968-10-02 ·cited 22×·via Manufactured Diversity Jurisdiction
  Artificially manufactured diversity jurisdiction, created solely by appointing a nonresident guardian for a minor, is insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.
• Rhodes v. Dwain L. Jones
  351 F.2d 884· 8th Cir.· 1965-10-29 ·cited 22×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that res judicata bars the current action because the claims and subject matter are identical to a prior case, even with a different jurisdictional basis.
• United States v. Preston
  352 F.2d 352· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-28 ·cited 22×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the United States and the individual defendants, as the claims did not fall under the cited statutes and no diversity jurisdiction existed.
• F & S Constr. Co., Inc. v. Jensen
  337 F.2d 160· 10th Cir.· 1964-09-01 ·cited 22×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  The court held that if it is established as a matter of law that a plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount, the court lacks jurisdiction, even if the claim was initially pleaded in good faith.
• Martin v. Reynolds Metals Corp.
  297 F.2d 49· 9th Cir.· 1961-11-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a party seeking to perpetuate evidence can utilize Rule 34 for inspection and examination of property and persons, even without a pending deposition, and that trial courts have broad discretion in issuing such orders.
• Johnson v. Stone
  268 F.2d 803· 7th Cir.· 1959-06-29 ·cited 22×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under either Illinois common law or federal civil rights statutes.
• Kaye-Martin v. Pierce P. Brooks
  267 F.2d 394· 7th Cir.· 1959-06-15 ·cited 22×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the defendant's limited activity in Illinois, which was for the convenience of attending a convention and not for the purpose of transacting business out of which the cause of action arose, did not constitute "the transaction of any business within this State"
• Kleinman v. Betty Dain Creations, Inc.
  189 F.2d 546· 2d Cir.· 1951-05-17 ·cited 22×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  A federal court lacks dependent jurisdiction over a state law contract claim when it is joined with a patent infringement claim, if the claims do not arise from a substantially identical set of facts and the contract claim is not ancillary to the patent claim.
• McCOMB v. McCORMACK
  159 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1947-01-08 ·cited 22×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the claims and cross-claims, that its findings of fact regarding the survey were supported by substantial evidence, and that the admission of certain evidence was harmless error.
• Div. 525 v. Gorman
  133 F.2d 273· 8th Cir.· 1943-02-08 ·cited 22×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction and correctly found that the contract had been legally cancelled, affirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit.
• MSP Recovery Claims v. The Hanover Ins. Co.
  995 F.3d 1289· 11th Cir.· 2021-04-30 ·cited 21×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over the cross-appeals challenging remand orders and affirmed the district court's denial of attorney's fees and costs.
• The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dingwell
  884 F.2d 629· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-07 ·cited 21×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment action for failure to join indispensable parties and its denial of the insurers' motions to intervene in the indemnification action.
• Kunkel v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  866 F.2d 1269· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act to determine the limits of an insurance policy's coverage, even though the underlying liability and coverage exceptions were not yet resolved.
• Holland Am. Ins. Co. v. Succession OF Shepherd J. ROY
  777 F.2d 992· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-04 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court improperly issued an injunction because the insurer failed to show irreparable harm, and that the district court should consider delegating the controversy to the bankruptcy court.
• REX v. CIA. Pervana de Vapores
  660 F.2d 61· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-17 ·cited 21×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) is unconstitutional insofar as it denies plaintiffs a jury trial in actions against foreign state-owned corporations engaged in commercial activities.
• Erspan v. Badgett
  647 F.2d 550· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-10 ·cited 21×·via Domestic Relations Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  A divorce decree's award of military retirement benefits, even if labeled as property division under state law, can be considered nondischargeable alimony, maintenance, or support under federal bankruptcy law if it serves that substance. A district court can enjoin a party from r
• Clark Equip. Co. & Clark Equip. v. Keller
  570 F.2d 778· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 21×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court affirmed the district court's findings regarding CEAG's personal jurisdiction and the validity of the 503 patent, finding no error in the analysis of prior art or obviousness.
• Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Est. OF Herbert Cammon
  929 F.2d 1220· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-12 ·cited 20×·via Probate Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  A premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to enter a final judgment, and a default judgment for failure to comply with discovery orders is permissible when the non-compliance is willful.
• Wilson v. AL McCORD Inc.
  858 F.2d 1469· 10th Cir.· 1988-10-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred the claim for the first well, the wife was not a controlling person, and the exemption for the second well was a jury question. The court reversed and remanded regarding the carried interest issue based on subsequent state law
• In re Bendectin Litigation. Sarah Ann Hoffman v. Merrell DOW Pharms., Inc.
  857 F.2d 290· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's exclusion of certain plaintiffs from the courtroom without a hearing violated their due process rights, and that the case law establishing the requirement for such hearings should apply retroactively.
• Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alejandro Alfonzo-Larrain R.
  854 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 20×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court agrees with the majority's result and much of its reasoning, while also sympathizing with the dissent's concerns about jurisdictional errors.
• Isidore Strauss v. Stratojac Corp.
  810 F.2d 679· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant waived its argument regarding inconsistent jury verdicts by failing to object before the jury was discharged, and that sufficient evidence supported the breach of contract, punitive damages, and compensatory damages awards.
• Harris v. Illinois-California Express, Inc.
  687 F.2d 1361· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 20×
  Permissive intervention of a party whose presence is not indispensable does not destroy diversity jurisdiction, even if their subsequent joinder as a defendant creates a situation where a plaintiff and defendant share the same state of citizenship.
• McKENZIE v. United States
  678 F.2d 571· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-14 ·cited 20×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court affirmed the judgment for the United States in the FTCA action, finding no clear error in the factual determination that the dog was not owned by a government employee. The court vacated the judgment in the removed state action, finding the district court lacked subject
• Cnty. OF Monroe v. State OF Fla. & State of N.Y.
  678 F.2d 1124· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-04 ·cited 20×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The dissenting judge holds that federal law does not create a cause of action for a county to sue another state for extradition expenses, and therefore the Eleventh Amendment does not bar such a suit.
• Jones v. Bender Welding & Mach. Works, Inc.
  581 F.2d 1331· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Caterpillar was negligent for failing to adequately notify its dealers about a necessary bracket assembly for an oil cooler supply line, and that admiralty jurisdiction applied, allowing recovery for lost profits.
• Beacon Constr. Co., Inc. v. Matco Elec. Co., Inc.
  521 F.2d 392· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-13 ·cited 20×
  A federal court may grant declaratory relief to void a mechanic's lien filed in violation of a contractual waiver, and award the bond premium paid to discharge it, even if state law provides alternative procedures.
• Johnson v. Mueller
  415 F.2d 354· 4th Cir.· 1969-08-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaints for lack of jurisdiction without considering whether they stated a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.