Diversity Of Citizenship

615 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 389 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Kruso v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp.
  872 F.2d 1416· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 422×
  The court held that the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), applies retroactively to disregard Doe defendants for removal purposes, and that the plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants failed to establish fraudul
• Neill G. Wade v. Clower
  94 Fla. 817· Fla.· 1927-10-31 ·cited 247×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a state court's award of attorney's fees and costs in a partnership accounting suit, holding that a subsequent federal court judgment settling the partnership accounting did not bar the state court from adjudicating fees and costs that were not
• In re Josephson
  218 F.2d 174· 1st Cir.· 1954-12-23 ·cited 199×
  The court held that it has the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to review a district court's order transferring a case to another district, in aid of its potential appellate jurisdiction, but will not routinely review such orders for abuse of discretion.
• Krasnov v. Dinan
  465 F.2d 1298· 3d Cir.· 1972-09-07 ·cited 189×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving diversity of citizenship, as the district court's finding that the defendant intended to remain in Pennsylvania indefinitely was not clearly erroneous.
• McSPARRAN v. Weist
  402 F.2d 867· 3d Cir.· 1968-10-02 ·cited 120×
  The majority affirmed the district court's dismissal of the mother's claim, holding that the manufactured diversity jurisdiction offended 28 U.S.C. § 1359. The dissenting judges would have reversed.
• McNELLO v. John B. Kelly, Inc.
  283 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1960-09-15 ·cited 102×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions on negligence were fundamentally flawed and constituted reversible error, despite the defendant's failure to object. The court also affirmed the dismissal of a third-party claim.
• L'Aiglon Apparel, Inc. v. Lana Lobell, Inc.
  214 F.2d 649· 3d Cir.· 1954-07-02 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint stated a cause of action under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act for fraudulent advertising, but that Section 44 of the Act did not provide federal jurisdiction for domestic unfair competition claims.
• Aston Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc.
  263 F.2d 437· 2d Cir.· 1959-01-09 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the Jones Act applies when substantial contacts exist between the transaction and the United States, and that a maritime claim for unseaworthiness can be tried to a jury alongside a Jones Act claim under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.
• Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. The T. Eaton Co. Ltd. & John David Eaton
  234 F.2d 633· 2d Cir.· 1956-06-01 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the Lanham Act does not provide extraterritorial remedies against foreign nationals acting under valid foreign trademarks in their home country, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing claims arising in Canada under the doctrine
• Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Labs.
  207 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1953-09-16 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against appellants for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
• Perfecto Barrantes Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co.
  883 F.2d 1553· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 73×
  A domestically incorporated corporation with a principal place of business outside the United States does not have dual citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and thus its foreign principal place of business does not defeat diversity jurisdiction when sued by alien plai
• MAS v. Perry
  489 F.2d 1396· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-22 ·cited 72×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper because Mrs. Mas retained her Mississippi citizenship and the jurisdictional amount was met in good faith by Mr. Mas.
• Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. & Chem. Bank v. Merry
  592 F.2d 118· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-29 ·cited 70×
  A state court garnishment order to satisfy court-ordered family support obligations is an implied exception to ERISA's anti-alienation and preemption provisions.
• Schatte v. Int'l Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emps. & Moving Picture Mach. Operators of United States & Canada
  182 F.2d 158· 9th Cir.· 1950-05-01 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief under the cited federal statutes, and that a prior decision involving the same parties and similar claims was decisive. The court also found that Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act was inapplicable due to the b
• Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Constr. Co., Inc.
  597 F.2d 596· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 69×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A state cannot assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation that has conducted no activities within the state, even if the plaintiff performed contractual obligations there.
• Jordine v. Walling
  185 F.2d 662· 3d Cir.· 1950-11-10 ·cited 68×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction over a civil action for maintenance and cure absent diversity of citizenship, even if joined with a Jones Act claim, because maintenance and cure is a non-federal maritime claim.
• Nuclear Eng'g Co. v. Scott
  660 F.2d 241· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-26 ·cited 67×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal due to the untimely filing, and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over both the Illinois action (no federal question or diversity jurisdiction) and the NEC action (no actua
• Calcote v. Tex. Pac. Coal & OIL Co.
  157 F.2d 216· 5th Cir.· 1946-07-31 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the absence of indispensable parties requires reversal, even if the original parties are satisfied with the judgment.
• Casio, Inc. v. S.M. & R. Co., Inc.
  755 F.2d 528· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 64×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the district court had diversity jurisdiction and that the defendant failed to establish a contractual right to return unsold watches, thus affirming the judgment for the plaintiff.
• Hudson v. Newell
  172 F.2d 848· 5th Cir.· 1949-02-24 ·cited 63×
  The court held that while full relief cannot be granted due to absent indispensable parties, limited relief is possible, and the suits should not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Food Fair, Inc.
  177 F.2d 177· 1st Cir.· 1949-09-21 ·cited 62×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  Federal jurisdiction was proper because the potential value of protecting the plaintiff's trade name in a new market, including the right to expand without local competition, exceeded the jurisdictional minimum. The Massachusetts statute provided grounds for injunctive relief aga
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co.
  121 F.2d 561· 8th Cir.· 1941-07-11 ·cited 61×
  An appellate court cannot allow amendments to establish jurisdiction or direct a lower court to do so when jurisdiction is lacking.
• Bobby Jones Garden Apts., Inc. v. Suleski
  391 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-26 ·cited 58×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A federal court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, based on a determination of state law, is improper if there is a good faith expectation that the claim is valid under state law, as this implicates removability and federal jurisdiction.
• Mottolese v. Kaufman
  176 F.2d 301· 2d Cir.· 1949-07-06 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the petition for mandamus was premature because the plaintiff had not yet been denied procedural advantages available in federal court, specifically regarding discovery.
• Engelhardt v. Bell & Howell Co.
  327 F.2d 30· 8th Cir.· 1964-01-30 ·cited 56×
  A prior judgment on the merits based on the same cause of action bars subsequent claims, even if based on different statutes or alleging continuing violations, if the underlying wrongful acts and injuries are the same.
• Subin v. Goldsmith
  224 F.2d 753· 2d Cir.· 1955-06-03 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the allegations in Counts I-IV were insufficient to state a claim for relief under SEC Rule X-14A-9, and that summary judgment was properly granted for Count V due to lack of proof.
• Minnehaha Cnty. v. Kelley
  150 F.2d 356· 8th Cir.· 1945-07-11 ·cited 56×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the administratrix's citizenship established federal jurisdiction, the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for failure to maintain a bridge, and evidence regarding the beneficiaries' physical condition was admissible to assess pecuniary loss.
• Chism v. Nat'l Heritage Life Ins. Co.
  637 F.2d 1328· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice due to the plaintiff's persistent failure to comply with discovery rules and court orders, and that the Doe defendants did not destroy diversity jurisdiction as no claims wer
• Standard Fittings Co. v. Sapag, S.A.
  625 F.2d 630· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-11 ·cited 55×
  The court held that Sapag's contacts with Louisiana were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the Louisiana Long-Arm Statute and the Due Process Clause.
• Prejean v. Sonatrach, Inc.
  652 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-13 ·cited 54×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the Texas Long Arm Statute requires a nexus between the cause of action and the defendant's contacts with Texas, and that the tort did not occur in Texas for statutory purposes. The court also affirmed that due process requires purposeful availment of the foru
• Md. Cas. Co. v. Boyle Const. Co., Inc.
  123 F.2d 558· 4th Cir.· 1941-11-10 ·cited 54×
  A federal court may refuse to exercise its declaratory judgment jurisdiction when a state court action involving the same parties and issues is already pending, especially if exercising jurisdiction would merely adjudicate defenses or encroach upon state court matters.
• Koonce v. Quaker Safety Prods. & Mfg. Co.
  798 F.2d 700· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 52×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that under Texas law, a defendant seeking indemnity or contribution from a third-party joint tortfeasor is not barred by the statute of limitations, even if the plaintiff's direct claim against the third party is time-barred.
• Kelly v. United States Steel Corp. & The Thew Shovel Co.
  284 F.2d 850· 3d Cir.· 1960-12-09 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction purposes is determined by the center of corporate activity and management, not solely by the location of director meetings or the 'nerve center'.
• Sandor Schwartz v. Cyrus S. Eaton
  264 F.2d 195· 2d Cir.· 1959-02-24 ·cited 52×
  The court concurs in the result because the dismissal of the appeal leaves the district court's order in full force. The district court properly separated claims under the Investment Company Act from other claims where jurisdiction was not obtained.
• Kanzelberger v. Kanzelberger
  782 F.2d 774· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-31 ·cited 48×
  A corporation's principal place of business is determined by its 'nerve center,' and if that center shifts to a state where a plaintiff is also a citizen, diversity jurisdiction is destroyed, even if the change resulted from a dispute over corporate control.
• Ayala v. United States
  550 F.2d 1196· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-28 ·cited 48×
  The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its precedent rejecting pendent party jurisdiction, holding that an independent basis of federal jurisdiction is required for claims against additional parties under the FTCA. However, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of motions to ame
• RAY v. Bird & SON & Asset Realization Co., Inc.
  519 F.2d 1081· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing further discovery.
• Marvine Markham v. City OF Newport News
  292 F.2d 711· 4th Cir.· 1961-06-19 ·cited 48×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A state statute cannot prevent a plaintiff from accessing federal diversity jurisdiction to enforce a state-created right, as federal court jurisdiction is determined by federal law, not state legislative attempts to restrict it.
• Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Langer
  168 F.2d 182· 8th Cir.· 1948-05-28 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action because a right to some adjudication through class representation might exist, and relief could potentially exist against personally served individuals.
• Barthel v. Stamm
  145 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1944-11-10 ·cited 48×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the amended petition related back to the original filing date, thus avoiding the statute of limitations, and that the defendant was incompetent to testify to an agreement contradicting the written loan documents.
• The Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen
  544 F.2d 624· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 47×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction exists and that the district court properly granted a preliminary injunction to a Canadian bankruptcy trustee seeking corporate records in New York.
• Frederic T. Mertens, Sr. v. The Flying Tiger Line, Inc.
  341 F.2d 851· 2d Cir.· 1965-02-16 ·cited 47×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the Warsaw Convention applies to military charter flights and that inadequate delivery of a passenger ticket renders the Convention's liability limitations inapplicable.
• Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Dolman
  333 F.2d 257· 9th Cir.· 1964-05-21 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the appeals from interlocutory orders were either moot or could be reviewed as part of the appeal from the final judgment, and that the trial court did not err in entering default judgment against appellant Janney for his contumacious refusal to appear for dep
• Calagaz v. Calhoon
  309 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1962-10-10 ·cited 46×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction is determined by the citizenship of named representatives in a class action against an unincorporated association, and that certain defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Alabama to establish personal jurisdiction.
• Keene Lumber Co. v. Leventhal
  165 F.2d 815· 1st Cir.· 1948-01-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a complaint alleging a fraudulent scheme to strip a company of assets, thereby disabling it from paying creditors, states a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, even if the specific misrepresentations are barred by the Statute of Frauds.
• Bryant v. Ford Motor Co.
  844 F.2d 602· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-06 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction at the time of removal because the defendant failed to establish complete diversity. The court also noted disagreement with the majority's broad rule regarding Doe defendants.
• Hydrokinetics, Inc. v. Alaska Mech., Inc.
  700 F.2d 1026· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-21 ·cited 44×
  The exercise of personal jurisdiction in Texas over the Alaska defendant is constitutionally permissible due to purposeful availment and foreseeable consequences in the forum state.
• Jeany Copfer Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co.
  495 F.2d 906· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-10 ·cited 44×
  A federal court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties, even if the issue is raised after final judgment, and the court must dismiss the action.
• La Societe Anonyme des Parfums LE Galion v. Jean Patou, Inc.
  495 F.2d 1265· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that minimal sales, even if profitable, do not constitute bona fide use to sustain trademark rights when the primary purpose is to reserve the mark and block competitors, and that res judicata may not apply to a dismissal for failure to prosecute in cases of contin
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc.
  253 F.2d 780· 6th Cir.· 1958-04-01 ·cited 44×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A valid defense to a claim does not, as a matter of legal certainty, preclude federal jurisdiction if the plaintiff's claim for the jurisdictional amount was made in good faith.