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

• Uwamie Tomiyasu v. Golden
  358 F.2d 651· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on res judicata, but should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction, remanding for dismissal without prejudice.
• Brough v. Strathmann Supply Co., Inc.
  358 F.2d 374· 3d Cir.· 1966-03-29 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the substitution of the plaintiff did not destroy diversity jurisdiction and that the amount in controversy and negligence issues should not have been decided as a matter of law.
• Compagnie Nationale AIR France v. Castano
  358 F.2d 203· 1st Cir.· 1966-03-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of settlement offer letters was improper and that one plaintiff's claim lacked jurisdiction. The court also found that damages for unforeseen suffering could be recoverable under Puerto Rico law.
• Monte v. S. Del. Cnty. Auth.
  321 F.2d 870· 3d Cir.· 1963-08-26 ·cited 16×
  The federal court lacked jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award because the parties specified a state court for such proceedings. The court also lacked jurisdiction to vacate or modify the award.
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Emmett Horton
  275 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1960-02-22 ·cited 16×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the amount claimed before the Industrial Accident Board, and the employee's counterclaim, established the requisite amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, even if the Board's award was less.
• Garden Homes, Inc. v. Mason
  249 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1957-10-25 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and that federal jurisdiction was properly established.
• Seaboard Fin. Co. v. Honorable Wade O. Martin, Jr.
  244 F.2d 329· 5th Cir.· 1957-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred suit against the Secretary of State, but that the claim against Seaboard Finance Corporation for unfair competition and trade name infringement stated a valid cause of action and should not have been dismissed on the pleadings.
• Hunt Tool Co. v. Moore, Inc.
  212 F.2d 685· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-06 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the intervention was permissive under Rule 24(b)(2) and that the intervener cured the jurisdictional defect by dismissing non-diverse defendants, thus the district court had jurisdiction.
• Dep't of Highways of La. v. Morse Bros. & Assocs., Inc.
  211 F.2d 140· 5th Cir.· 1954-03-12 ·cited 16×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The Department of Highways, despite not being a true corporation, possesses sufficient corporate-like attributes and powers, including the ability to sue and be sued, to be considered a citizen for federal diversity jurisdiction. Furthermore, a formal putting in default was not r
• Gallagher v. Philadelphia Transp. Co.
  185 F.2d 543· 3d Cir.· 1950-12-04 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard for determining domicile and made a clearly erroneous finding of fact regarding the plaintiff's intent to return to Pennsylvania.
• Porter v. Bennison
  180 F.2d 523· 10th Cir.· 1950-03-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction because the claims primarily involved state probate matters, not federal law, and diversity jurisdiction was not properly established for such claims.
• Riley v. Union Pac. R. Co.
  177 F.2d 673· 7th Cir.· 1949-10-04 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motion to transfer the case and in dismissing the complaint.
• Johnson v. Middleton
  175 F.2d 535· 7th Cir.· 1949-06-30 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that Bishop Kelly was an indispensable party, and his citizenship with that of some plaintiffs destroyed diversity jurisdiction, requiring dismissal.
• Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Kellas
  173 F.2d 120· 1st Cir.· 1949-03-04 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment complaint, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction.
• Am. Chem. Paint Co. v. Dow Chem. Co.
  161 F.2d 956· 6th Cir.· 1947-05-26 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that a declaratory judgment action challenging patent validity is not a suit for patent infringement, and thus venue is governed by the general civil venue statute, not the specific patent infringement venue statute.
• Peck v. Shell OIL Co., Inc.
  142 F.2d 141· 9th Cir.· 1944-04-15 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the license agreement was unenforceable due to failure of consideration and that no confidential disclosures were violated.
• Lopata v. Handler
  121 F.2d 938· 10th Cir.· 1941-07-24 ·cited 16×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the plaintiffs waived their right to remand the case to state court by failing to object and proceeding to trial, and that the appeal should be dismissed due to procedural defects.
• Pulte Home Corp., Inc. v. Ply Gem Indus., Inc.
  804 F. Supp. 1471· M.D. Fla.· 1992-09-22 ·cited 15×
  The court found that factual disputes remained, precluding summary judgment on most issues, but denied summary judgment on punitive damages against the defendants. The court also found that Pulte had standing to sue.
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly
  921 F.2d 1310· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, their petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition were denied.
• Silkwood v. Kerr-McGEE Corp.
  769 F.2d 1451· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-31 ·cited 15×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the punitive damages award was not preempted by federal law and was supported by evidence of Kerr-McGee's reckless disregard for public safety, and that the Workers' Compensation Act did not bar consideration of evidence of personal injury in assessing punitiv
• Plechner v. Widener Coll., Inc.
  569 F.2d 1250· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-28 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the affiliation procedures were proper under Delaware law and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial.
• Mass. State Pharm. Ass'n v. Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc.
  431 F.2d 130· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite $10,000 jurisdictional amount, either individually or through aggregation, to support federal jurisdiction.
• Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Carolina Peanut Co.
  186 F.2d 816· 4th Cir.· 1951-02-03 ·cited 15×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of negligence and that the insurance company should have been allowed to intervene to recover its proportionate share of the damages.
• Dwinell-Wright Co. v. Nat'l Fruit Prod. Co., Inc.
  129 F.2d 848· 1st Cir.· 1942-07-16 ·cited 15×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  A district court may enjoin a party from prosecuting a trademark cancellation proceeding before the Patent Office when the validity of the trademark is already at issue in a pending federal court action between the same parties.
• Est. of Jackson v. Ventas Realty
  812 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2011-09-12 ·cited 14×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A Florida statutory supplemental proceeding under Section 56.29 to enforce a state court judgment is not a "civil action" removable to federal court because it is an ancillary continuation of the original state court action and federal courts lack original jurisdiction over such
• In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig. In re Johns-Manville Corp. v. Blinken
  982 F.2d 721· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial courts' approval of the restructured Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust was proper under Rule 23 and bankruptcy laws, despite the majority's concerns about subclassing and representation.
• Transworld Airlines, Inc. v. Am. Coupon Exch., Inc.
  913 F.2d 676· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the tort claim and entering a permanent injunction due to an inadequate factual record regarding the reasonableness of TWA's transfer restrictions on frequent flyer coupons. However, the court affirmed t
• Shiffler v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States
  838 F.2d 78· 3d Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction and granted summary judgment because the plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by ERISA and the denial of insurance benefits was not arbitrary and capricious.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. for Manning Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Ticktin
  832 F.2d 1438· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-02 ·cited 14×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the proviso in 12 U.S.C. § 1730(k)(l) limits federal jurisdiction even when the FSLIC is a plaintiff and the case involves federal law, as long as the core dispute concerns state law rights and obligations of the institution.
• Long v. Dist. OF Columbia
  820 F.2d 409· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the District Court lacked diversity jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim against the District of Columbia. However, the dissenting judge argued that PEPCO's cross-claim for indemnity against the District should have been submitted to a jury.
• Tele-Save Merchandising Co. v. Consumers Distrib. Co., Ltd.
  814 F.2d 1120· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Ohio Business Opportunity Plans Act did not apply because the parties' freely negotiated choice-of-law provision selecting New Jersey law was valid and did not violate a fundamental public policy of Ohio.
• Panalpina Welttransport GMBH v. Geosource, Inc.
  764 F.2d 352· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 14×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The alter ego doctrine cannot be used to preserve diversity jurisdiction by ignoring a subsidiary's place of incorporation when that would create diversity.
• Fern v. Turman
  736 F.2d 1367· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 14×·via Domestic Relations Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that federal courts should decline jurisdiction over these cases, either due to the domestic relations exception or because the claims are not ripe for adjudication.
• Kevin Gross for Hougland Barge Line, Inc. v. Hougland
  712 F.2d 1034· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff, as a receiver appointed under Delaware law, could rely on his own citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, and that the Kentucky statute of limitations did not bar the action because the claim arose after dissolution.
• NEW York Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Dev. Auth. & Minority Equity Cap. Corp.
  700 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-09 ·cited 14×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the judgment was appropriate in determining the rights to the cash surrender value of the insurance policies and New York Life's liability to pay it, but remanded for clarification regarding Sterling's consent to the extinguishment of his tort claims.
• Coastal Petroleum Co. v. U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals
  695 F.2d 1314· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing an injunction because federal question jurisdiction was absent and the injunction did not fall within exceptions to the anti-injunction statute.
• Levy v. Weissman
  671 F.2d 766· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-23 ·cited 14×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A writ of mandamus will be granted to vacate a district court's order remanding a properly removed case to state court solely as a sanction for the petitioner's failure to comply with a local rule or a court order.
• Wigand v. Flo-Tek, Inc.
  609 F.2d 1028· 2d Cir.· 1979-10-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction under the Securities Act of 1933 but not diversity jurisdiction, and that the breach of contract claim should have been dismissed. Liability under Section 12(2) was affirmed, but the damages calculation was reversed and remande
• United States v. Gustav Wahl
  583 F.2d 285· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 14×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  Literal compliance with Rule 3, F.R.Civ.P., by filing a complaint is sufficient to interrupt the running of a federal statute of limitations, even if service of process is delayed.
• Bossom v. Bossom
  551 F.2d 474· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-17 ·cited 14×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that federal courts should decline jurisdiction in domestic relations cases that are "on the verge" of the matrimonial exception, especially when state courts are better equipped to handle them.
• Mrs. Gertwyl Amakyi Gamble v. Cent. OF Ga. Ry. Co.
  486 F.2d 781· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-23 ·cited 14×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) cases, which are explicitly made non-removable by statute, cannot be removed to federal court even when joined with a removable third-party claim.
• Wood v. Stark Tri-County Bldg. Trades Council
  473 F.2d 272· 6th Cir.· 1973-02-08 ·cited 14×·via 28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)
  The court held that there was not a legal certainty that the plaintiff could not recover more than the jurisdictional amount, and thus the district court had jurisdiction.
• Ajax Realty Corp. v. J. F. Zook, Inc.
  493 F.2d 818· 4th Cir.· 1972-12-12 ·cited 14×
  A foreign corporation can be subject to Virginia's long-arm jurisdiction under § 8-81.2(a)(5) if it causes injury in the state by breach of warranty made outside the state, and derives substantial revenue from goods used in the state, even if its contacts are otherwise minimal, p
• Whitelock v. Delbert Leatherman
  460 F.2d 507· 10th Cir.· 1972-05-09 ·cited 14×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the trial court did not err in ordering specific performance of the agreement to assign mining leases, but affirmed conditionally due to a jurisdictional defect.
• Sandobal v. Armour & Co.
  429 F.2d 249· 8th Cir.· 1970-07-13 ·cited 14×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that an action for wrongful discharge under a collective bargaining agreement is governed by the statute of limitations for written contracts, not oral contracts. The court also found that laches was inapplicable, that factual issues precluded summary judgment on f
• Ortman v. Stanray Corp.
  371 F.2d 154· 7th Cir.· 1967-01-03 ·cited 14×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The district court had diversity jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for infringement of foreign patents.
• Concession Consultants, Inc. v. Mirisch
  355 F.2d 369· 2d Cir.· 1966-01-21 ·cited 14×
  A district court judge cannot sua sponte raise and decide the issue of improper venue when the defendants have not raised it and have otherwise waived their objection.
• Julien v. Sarkes Tarzian, Inc.
  352 F.2d 845· 7th Cir.· 1965-10-21 ·cited 14×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because she did not prove she was a citizen of a state different from the defendants at the time the suit was filed.
• Upper Miss. Towing Corp. v. West
  338 F.2d 823· 8th Cir.· 1964-12-08 ·cited 14×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment or to dismiss a complaint is not a final decision and is not appealable as an interlocutory injunction, as it does not affect substantive rights.
• Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  320 F.2d 451· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-18 ·cited 14×·via Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that alleged violations of the collective bargaining agreement, including cancellation of vacations and extension of work weeks, constitute minor disputes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Board of Adjustment. A claim for damages for breach of contrac