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

• Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists v. Cornstubble
  295 F.2d 209· 5th Cir.· 1961-10-13 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority's interpretation leads to an illogical result regarding federal court access for airline labor disputes.
• Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. NEW CUT Rate Liquors, Inc.
  245 F.2d 453· 7th Cir.· 1957-05-23 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the district court erred in finding it had federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to provide competent proof that the amount in controversy exceeded $3,000.
• Mrs. Elsie Haynes v. Felder
  239 F.2d 868· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that minimal diversity among claimants is sufficient for federal jurisdiction under the Interpleader Act, and that the trial court properly granted summary judgment.
• Kingston v. McGRATH
  232 F.2d 495· 9th Cir.· 1956-04-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury might reasonably have found the physician negligent for delaying diagnosis and treatment of fractures due to delayed X-rays, and that this delay caused substantial damage.
• Roth v. Davis
  231 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-05 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the appeal lacked merit because the fictitious defendants, who were the basis for the diversity jurisdiction claim, were dismissed, rendering the appeal moot.
• Green v. Herschel S. Green and Madge Green
  218 F.2d 130· 7th Cir.· 1954-12-20 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction because a party, Madge Green, who was named as a defendant, should have been realigned as a plaintiff due to her interests in the trust, thus destroying complete diversity between the parties.
• Walton Hardin v. McAVOY
  216 F.2d 399· 5th Cir.· 1954-10-29 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the plaintiff's undisputed testimony and settled law established his domicile in Florida, thus conferring diversity jurisdiction.
• United States v. Lushbough
  200 F.2d 717· 8th Cir.· 1952-12-16 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that Hoffman was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred, and therefore the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The judgment against Hoffman was also reversed.
• Mayflower Indus. v. Thor Corp.
  184 F.2d 537· 3d Cir.· 1950-08-08 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the claims against Thor and Teldisco were not 'separate and independent' for removal purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
• Parker v. Gordon
  178 F.2d 888· 1st Cir.· 1949-12-22 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that a jury verdict for loss of consortium could be sustained even without proof of adultery, if the defendant's actions induced the wife to refuse sexual relations with her husband. The court also found no inconsistency in the jury's verdicts on the two counts.
• Peardon v. Chapman
  169 F.2d 909· 3d Cir.· 1948-09-02 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for lack of prosecution was unwarranted and is reversed.
• Conn. Indem. Co. v. LEE
  168 F.2d 420· 1st Cir.· 1948-06-14 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the accident arose out of the unloading of the truck, thus falling within the coverage of the plaintiff's insurance policy.
• Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Kortz
  151 F.2d 582· 10th Cir.· 1945-10-30 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the trial court should not have dismissed the declaratory judgment actions, but the decision to entertain them rests within the trial court's discretion.
• Young v. Garrett
  149 F.2d 223· 8th Cir.· 1945-05-09 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the grantors of one plaintiff and the administrators of certain estates were indispensable parties, and their inclusion would destroy diversity jurisdiction, thus affirming the dismissal of the cases.
• Petersen v. Chicago
  138 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1943-10-26 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
• Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Creek Cnty. v. Seber
  130 F.2d 663· 10th Cir.· 1942-08-22 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the taxes paid were void and that a permanent injunction against their collection was warranted.
• Laning v. Nat'l Ribbon & Carbon Paper MFG. Co.
  125 F.2d 565· 7th Cir.· 1942-02-20 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the primary issue was the determination of patent title based on state law, not a claim arising under federal patent laws.
• State v. The Honorable E. C. Love
  110 Fla. 91· Fla.· 1933-05-05 ·cited 18×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by Neel Brothers to prevent a circuit court from proceeding in a negligence lawsuit, holding that the defendants' filing of a removal petition to federal court constituted a general appearance in state court that subje
• Vachon v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co.
  20 F.4th 1343· 11th Cir.· 2021-12-14 ·cited 17×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  The Eleventh Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review a district court's order remanding a case to state court based on an untimely notice of removal, as such orders are barred from appellate review by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
• Devore v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
  658 F. Supp. 2d 1372· M.D. Fla.· 2009-09-28 ·cited 17×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a possibility of a valid claim against the non-diverse defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeded the federal threshold, thus denying remand.
• Townhouses of Highland Beach Condo. Ass'n v. QBE Ins.
  504 F. Supp. 2d 1307· S.D. Fla.· 2007-06-22 ·cited 17×
  The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of Florida Statutes section 627.701.
• Tingley Sys., Inc. v. Bay State HMO Mgmt., Inc.
  833 F. Supp. 882· M.D. Fla.· 1993-09-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) should be granted to consolidate related litigation in another district for judicial economy and convenience, even if it shifts inconvenience to the plaintiff.
• Pyramid Sec. Ltd. v. Ib Resolution, Inc.
  924 F.2d 1114· D.C. Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the alleged acts did not constitute a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO and that the common law claims were time-barred, affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Carey v. Bahama Cruise Lines
  864 F.2d 201· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 17×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that maritime law, not Massachusetts comparative negligence law, governs the calculation of damages for a maritime tort, and that the district court erred in applying the Massachusetts rule which barred recovery when the plaintiff was more than 50% negligent.
• Scoggins v. Charles Eugene Pollock, M.D.
  727 F.2d 1025· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 17×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  A party's domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes is not changed by moving to another state solely for educational purposes if they lack the intent to remain there indefinitely.
• Am. Lease Plans, Inc. v. Silver Sand Co. OF Leesburg, Inc.
  637 F.2d 311· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-17 ·cited 17×
  A principal is liable for an agent's fraudulent acts if the principal clothed the agent with apparent authority, and the third party reasonably relied on that authority. The principal cannot deny the agent's authority under such circumstances.
• Congress OF Racial Equality v. Clemmons
  323 F.2d 54· 5th Cir.· 1963-09-12 ·cited 17×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The concurring judge believes federal jurisdiction is lacking and state courts are the appropriate forum.
• Welsh v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y.
  186 F.2d 16· 5th Cir.· 1951-01-17 ·cited 17×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a change of domicile to New Mexico, and thus diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
• Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Schantz
  178 F.2d 779· 5th Cir.· 1949-12-28 ·cited 17×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory judgment action concerning insurance policy coverage, as an actual controversy exceeding $3,000 existed.
• Armstrong v. Alliance Tr. Co.
  126 F.2d 164· 5th Cir.· 1942-02-26 ·cited 17×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that a federal question must be essential to the plaintiff's cause of action and appear on the face of the complaint to support removal jurisdiction, and that ancillary jurisdiction fails if the basis for removal jurisdiction is absent.
• U.S. Bank v. Taveras
  2017 WL 5248499· M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-17 ·cited 16×
  The court denied defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal because they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or establish any basis for federal jurisdiction.
• Excess Risk Underwriters, Inc. v. Lafayette Life Ins.
  208 F. Supp. 2d 1310· S.D. Fla.· 2002-04-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the economic loss rule barred claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, and tortious interference because they were not independent of the breach of contract claims.
• Media Duplication Servs., Ltd. v. HDG Software, Inc.
  928 F.2d 1228· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that service of process was insufficient under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2)(C)(ii) without acknowledgment, and diversity jurisdiction was not established due to insufficient proof of principal place of business. Sanctions against counsel were procedurally and substantively
• Osterberger v. Relocation Realty Serv. Corp.
  921 F.2d 72· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial should be treated as an appeal from the underlying judgment if the intent to appeal the judgment is clear, despite the technical wording of the notice of appeal.
• Orozco v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  887 F.2d 949· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts state law claims and that the employee was properly classified as part-time for benefit calculation purposes under the plan.
• Int'l Shipping Co., S.A. v. Hydra Offshore, Inc.
  875 F.2d 388· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The dissenting judge argues that the attorney's jurisdictional theory was plausible and supported by authority, and therefore the Rule 11 sanction was too harsh.
• Michael J. Dubisky for the V.S. Tr. I v. Owens
  849 F.2d 1034· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant failed to mitigate its damages by not attempting informal resolution of the jurisdictional issue before filing an extensive motion to dismiss, thus the full award of attorney's fees was an abuse of discretion.
• J.A. Olson Co. v. City OF Winona
  818 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 16×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  A corporation's principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction is determined by the 'total activity' test, which considers both the 'nerve center' and the 'place of activity' based on the totality of the facts.
• Bally Exp. Corp. v. Balicar, Ltd.
  804 F.2d 398· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants transacted business in Illinois, thus submitting to the court's personal jurisdiction under the Illinois long-arm statute, and affirmed the denial of their motion to vacate the default judgment.
• Allen v. Ferguson
  791 F.2d 611· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-29 ·cited 16×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review an order dismissing one defendant prior to remand, and that the district court erred in dismissing the defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction before addressing subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors
  761 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the absence of a formal default judgment against defaulting parties did not divest the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act correctly mandates non-jury trials in suits against foreign states.
• Hargrave v. OKI Nursery, Inc.
  646 F.2d 716· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-19 ·cited 16×
  A federal district court, having acquired personal jurisdiction over a defendant for one claim under state long-arm statute, has the power to adjudicate all related claims arising from a common nucleus of operative fact, even if state law would limit state courts to only the clai
• Cole v. Schenley Indus., Inc.
  563 F.2d 35· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the proxy statement adequately disclosed material facts regarding the merger, thus not violating federal securities laws, but remanded for reconsideration of a state law claim due to diversity jurisdiction.
• Thacker v. Whitehead
  548 F.2d 634· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-20 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that granting summary judgment before the 10-day period expired is not reversible error if the unsuccessful party demonstrates no prejudice. The court also questioned jurisdiction under the Civil Rights statutes.
• Patrician Towers Owners, Inc. v. Charles M. Fairchild (Individually and as general partner
  513 F.2d 216· 4th Cir.· 1975-03-26 ·cited 16×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the plaintiffs' standing and the court's jurisdiction, requiring a remand.
• Hales v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
  500 F.2d 836· 4th Cir.· 1974-05-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' federal claim under 29 U.S.C. § 308(b) was properly before the court, and that the corporation, not the committee, was the 'administrator' of the profit-sharing plan.
• James v. Lusby
  499 F.2d 488· D.C. Cir.· 1974-04-24 ·cited 16×
  The District Court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the case to the Superior Court because the record did not demonstrate to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold.
• Lamberg v. Robert J. Callahan under the Will of Ernest Wood
  455 F.2d 1213· 2d Cir.· 1972-02-17 ·cited 16×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the mutual wills executed by the Woods were intended to be irrevocable.
• Woodward v. D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc.
  428 F.2d 880· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-09 ·cited 16×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the defendants waived their objection to the removal of the case to federal court by not moving for remand and by participating in the litigation, and that their delay in asserting a counterclaim for professional malpractice barred them from doing so at this l
• Americana of Puerto RICO, Inc. v. Kaplus
  368 F.2d 431· 3d Cir.· 1966-10-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a default judgment from the Superior Court of Puerto Rico is entitled to full faith and credit in federal courts, and that Puerto Rico's Commonwealth status does not remove it from the purview of statutes like 28 U.S.C. § 1738.