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

• Reed v. Robilio
  376 F.2d 392· 6th Cir.· 1967-04-11 ·cited 20×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court erred in realigning the executor bank as a plaintiff for diversity jurisdiction purposes, as its antagonism toward the plaintiff's claim warranted alignment as a defendant.
• The Cong. OF Racial Equal. v. Douglas
  318 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was an unconstitutional abridgement of First Amendment rights and an abuse of discretion because there was no evidence that CORE intended to foment violence or that a clear and present danger existed.
• Formulabs, Inc. v. Hartley PEN Co. & E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
  275 F.2d 52· 9th Cir.· 1960-02-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that under Rule 24(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party seeking to protect a trade secret that is subject to the court's control has a right to intervene in an action where disclosure of that secret is at issue.
• Walker v. United States Gypsum Co.
  270 F.2d 857· 4th Cir.· 1959-10-05 ·cited 20×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A manufacturer performing construction work for itself, even if not for others, can be a statutory employer under Virginia's Workmen's Compensation Act, making the injured subcontractor's employee's exclusive remedy a proceeding before the Industrial Commission.
• Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co. v. Steinheider
  268 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1959-07-22 ·cited 20×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the value of the right to be free from the defendant's competition exceeded $10,000, thus affirming the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• United States v. Marshall
  230 F.2d 183· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-30 ·cited 20×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The United States is not relieved of liability by the Railroad's intervening negligence because the Railroad's actions were not a superseding cause, as the United States should have foreseen the possibility of such negligent conduct.
• Farmland Irrigation Co., Inc. v. Dopplmaier
  220 F.2d 247· 9th Cir.· 1955-03-08 ·cited 20×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the denial of a motion to intervene was proper because the applicant failed to demonstrate inadequate representation by the existing party.
• Erwin v. Barrow
  217 F.2d 522· 10th Cir.· 1954-11-12 ·cited 20×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that Oklahoma venue statutes, when construed in light of federal diversity jurisdiction, did not preclude an administrator from suing in federal court when the land was located within the federal district.
• Yuba Consolidated Gold Fields v. Kilkeary
  206 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1953-08-07 ·cited 20×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  A complaint seeking to enjoin multiple lawsuits to prevent a multiplicity of suits states a claim upon which relief can be granted, even if some individual claims are below the jurisdictional amount, as the equity jurisdiction extends to the entire controversy.
• Stern v. Beer
  200 F.2d 794· 6th Cir.· 1952-12-19 ·cited 20×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended in trial or appellate courts, and such amendments relate back to the original filing date if jurisdiction actually existed.
• Giordano v. Radio Corp. of Am.
  183 F.2d 558· 3d Cir.· 1950-07-12 ·cited 20×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish the jurisdictional amount for an individual claim, and the suit could not proceed as a class action.
• Rosenberg v. Baum
  153 F.2d 10· 10th Cir.· 1946-01-08 ·cited 20×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the federal court had jurisdiction to determine heir interests and that the evidence did not establish that Birdie held property in trust for Harry or that Harry's estate was not consumed by Birdie's expenditures.
• United States v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y.
  142 F.2d 726· 2d Cir.· 1944-05-15 ·cited 20×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the subcontractor (plaintiff) was liable for the cost of repairs due to defective materials and workmanship, as it had adopted the government's guarantee clause and failed to prove its own performance.
• Andrews v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
  124 F.2d 788· 7th Cir.· 1941-11-15 ·cited 20×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  Individual policyholder claims against a mutual insurance company's surplus funds are several and cannot be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional amount if each claim individually falls below that threshold.
• Am. Broad. Co. v. Wahl Co.
  121 F.2d 412· 2d Cir.· 1941-06-18 ·cited 20×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the second and third causes of action were properly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction due to insufficient diversity of citizenship, not on the merits.
• Stone v. Millstein
  804 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1986-11-24 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court properly granted involuntary dismissal and summary judgment, and that the sale of a general partnership interest does not automatically constitute a security under federal law.
• Thompson v. Thompson
  798 F.2d 1547· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 19×·via Domestic Relations Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) to determine which of two conflicting state child custody decrees is valid and enforceable.
• Taylor v. Nelson
  788 F.2d 220· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-11 ·cited 19×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear appeals from both the order denying a stay pending arbitration and the order vacating the arbitration award, and that the motion to vacate was untimely filed.
• DiRUGGIERO v. Rodgers
  743 F.2d 1009· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 19×·via Domestic Relations Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that claims under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) arise under federal law, and that the domestic relations exception does not bar diversity jurisdiction over a state-law child abduction tort claim.
• Nicolae Dragan v. John and Sylvia Miller
  679 F.2d 712· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 19×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction over a suit that, despite its labels, is effectively a challenge to a will's validity due to undue influence, as such claims are ancillary to probate proceedings in Illinois.
• Moore v. Mrs. Jimmie F. Lindsey
  662 F.2d 354· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 19×·via Probate Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the Georgia long arm statute confers personal jurisdiction over a devisee who owns property in Georgia, and that the Cook County property devised to the daughter must bear the PCA indebtedness. The court also held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisd
• Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co.
  600 F.2d 15· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-03 ·cited 19×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court must determine if subject matter jurisdiction exists due to insufficient pleading of diversity of citizenship.
• Dassinger v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co.
  505 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-20 ·cited 19×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and in granting summary judgment for the defendant.
• Gallagher v. The Cont'l Ins. Co.
  502 F.2d 827· 10th Cir.· 1974-08-20 ·cited 19×
  Citizens and taxpayers lack standing to bring a derivative action on behalf of the state to challenge a contract, absent specific state authorization or a direct benefit intended for them as third-party beneficiaries.
• Stifel v. Hopkins
  477 F.2d 1116· 6th Cir.· 1973-05-01 ·cited 19×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court holds that the rule that prisoners removed from their domicile do not lose it should not be an absolute presumption.
• Dacey v. The Fla. BAR, Inc.
  414 F.2d 195· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-22 ·cited 19×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The Florida Bar, as an integral part of the state's judicial branch, is an agency of the State of Florida and thus immune from diversity jurisdiction suits.
• Eagle Star Ins. Co. v. Augustin Maltes
  313 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1963-03-01 ·cited 19×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the claims of multiple judgment creditors against an insurer cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy when they sue directly on their individual judgments, as they lack a common and undivided interest.
• Minsky's Follies of Fla., Inc. v. Sennes
  206 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1953-08-06 ·cited 19×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that a claim for loss of use of premises under an oral lease longer than one year is barred by the Statute of Frauds, but claims for expenses incurred at the defendant's request are not barred and federal jurisdiction is determined by the amount in controversy as a
• United States v. Sentinel Fire INS. Co.
  178 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1949-08-13 ·cited 19×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
• Nationwide Mut. Co. v. Ft. Myers Total Rehab Ctr., Inc.
  657 F. Supp. 2d 1279· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was met by aggregating claims, and that most of the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss, except for civil conspiracy.
• Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat'l Corp. t/d/b/a Pittsburgh Nat'l Bank
  899 F.2d 1350· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the attorney's recusal motion was properly denied, but the sanctions order against him must be vacated and remanded due to insufficient notice and failure to differentiate between Rule 11 and § 1927 standards.
• Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.
  822 F.2d 1544· Fed. Cir.· 1987-06-25 ·cited 18×
  The court's judgment is affirmed, but the judge disagrees with the reasoning regarding jurisdiction.
• Passarella v. Hilton Int'l Co.
  810 F.2d 674· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the majority improperly substituted its judgment for the district court's reasonable conclusion regarding excusable neglect under Rule 60(b).
• Ferd Schneider v. Dumbarton Developers, Inc.
  767 F.2d 1007· D.C. Cir.· 1985-07-23 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the appellants did not substantially perform their obligations under the contract by the deadline and that the August 4 Settlement Agreement eliminated any notice and cure period. The court also found that 2106 F Street Associates, as an intervenor, was subjec
• Fiorito Bros., Inc. v. Fruehauf Corp.
  747 F.2d 1309· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court correctly determined that the seller's limited repair or replacement remedy failed of its essential purpose, thereby invalidating the disclaimer of consequential damages. The jury instructions were also found to be proper.
• NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United GAS Pipe Line Co.
  690 F.2d 1203· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the denial of consumers' intervention as of right and permissive intervention, but reversed the denial of city officials' permissive intervention.
• Wasserman v. Irwin Wasserman
  671 F.2d 832· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 18×·via Domestic Relations Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the suit under the domestic relations exception, as the claims asserted were common law torts not dependent on family status.
• DeBRY v. Transamerica Corp.
  601 F.2d 480· 10th Cir.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the action to federal court was proper, despite the plaintiff's subsequent change of residence.
• Lugo-Vina v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc.
  574 F.2d 41· 1st Cir.· 1978-04-27 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court erred in finding diversity jurisdiction because the evidence did not establish New York as Pueblo's principal place of business.
• Alvah L. Snow v. Ford Motor Co.
  561 F.2d 787· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the amount in controversy for removal jurisdiction cannot be met by aggregating individual claims, even when injunctive relief is sought, if those claims are separate and distinct.
• Mason v. Belieu
  543 F.2d 215· D.C. Cir.· 1976-04-15 ·cited 18×
  The court agreed that the statute does not limit remedial provisions solely to passengers and that derivative damages for mental distress are not awardable. However, the concurring opinion found the lower court's award for direct injury to Mrs. Mason was not clearly erroneous.
• Beam v. Int'l Org. OF Masters
  511 F.2d 975· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Trustees' denial of accidental death benefits was not arbitrary or capricious, and that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.
• Miller v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. (hereafter AT&T)
  507 F.2d 759· 3d Cir.· 1974-11-04 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A complaint alleging directors failed to collect a debt owed by a political committee, which constituted an illegal corporate contribution in violation of federal law, states a claim for breach of fiduciary duty sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
• Roslyn Friedman v. Meyers
  482 F.2d 435· 2d Cir.· 1973-05-14 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding fraud, intent, and knowledge, and the prior state court decision relied upon by the trial court had been reversed on the merits.
• Dietemann v. Time, Inc.
  449 F.2d 245· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that clandestine photography and electronic recording of a plaintiff in his home without consent, leading to emotional distress, constitutes an invasion of privacy under California law, and the First Amendment does not insulate the defendant from liability for such
• Green v. Hale
  433 F.2d 324· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-20 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jurisdictional rulings or the trial court's evidentiary and instructional decisions.
• Phoenix Sav. & Loan, Inc. v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  427 F.2d 862· 4th Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in directing a verdict for the insurer because conflicting inferences could be drawn from the undisputed facts regarding the degree of control exercised by the alleged malefactors over the corporation, thus precluding summary judgment
• Othal L. Turner & On-The-Town, Inc. v. H M H Publ'g Co., Inc.
  380 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiffs established a secondary meaning for their 'Playboy' and 'Playmate' marks in connection with night clubs and restaurants, justifying an injunction against the defendants' confusingly similar use.
• Slaughter v. Toye Bros. Yellow CAB Co.
  359 F.2d 954· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-10 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proving diversity of citizenship, as he was a resident of Louisiana at the time the suit was filed.
• Wallach v. City OF Pagedale
  359 F.2d 57· 8th Cir.· 1966-04-01 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under federal law, both for non-compliance with pleading rules and for lack of a valid cause of action against the defendants.