Diversity Of Citizenship

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

• In re Shell OIL Co.
  970 F.2d 355· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A post-removal affidavit or stipulation limiting recovery does not authorize remand if the complaint itself established federal jurisdiction.
• Lundquist v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc.
  946 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1991-10-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's finding of New Hampshire citizenship was not clearly erroneous, affirming the dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Free v. United States
  879 F.2d 1535· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the judgment, denying the appeal because the appellant failed to present a non-frivolous argument regarding the magistrate's credibility determinations.
• Steve D. Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc.
  870 F.2d 1044· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A dismissal with prejudice based on a statute of limitations in one federal diversity action has res judicata effect on a duplicative action filed in another federal district court.
• Parlato v. Abbott Labs.
  850 F.2d 203· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A common law claim for wrongful discharge cannot be based solely on a violation of public policy embodied in a statute that provides its own administrative remedy.
• Thomes v. Equitable Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  837 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the constitutional issue raised by the plaintiffs regarding the FSLIC's administrative scheme was not ripe for review because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
• Brown v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.
  753 F.2d 393· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 6×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The court held that the presence of nondiverse defendants does not destroy diversity jurisdiction over other parties when an independent basis of federal question jurisdiction exists over the nondiverse defendants.
• Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor & City Council OF Baltimore
  733 F.2d 484· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 6×
  The court granted the City of Baltimore's motion to stay the injunction preventing its eminent domain action but denied its request to enjoin the Colts from preparing to play in Indianapolis.
• Krier-Hawthorne v. Beam
  728 F.2d 658· 4th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the citizenship of a personal representative appointed solely to manufacture diversity jurisdiction should be disregarded, and the citizenship of the real party in interest should be considered instead.
• Batka v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  704 F.2d 684· 3d Cir.· 1983-04-07 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the insurer only needed to prove its fraud defense by a preponderance of the evidence, when New Jersey law requires clear and convincing evidence for rescission of an insurance policy.
• Exxon Corp. v. United States
  655 F.2d 1112· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court exercised its supervisory powers to consolidate litigation concerning oil pricing regulations in the District of Columbia action, staying proceedings in the Texas action.
• The Coca-Cola Co. v. Stewart
  621 F.2d 287· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce fall within the Lanham Act's jurisdiction, reversing the district court's dismissal.
• Pacurar v. Miles A. Hernly
  611 F.2d 179· 7th Cir.· 1979-11-21 ·cited 6×
• Boston OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Balbin
  591 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 6×
  A federal district court may not decline to exercise jurisdiction over an interpleader action simply because a state court action is pending, especially when state certification procedures are available for resolving state law issues.
• Fury Imports, Inc. v. Shakespeare Co.
  554 F.2d 1376· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-24 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the contract was renewed and that Shakespeare's actions were not justified, but a new trial is required on compensatory damages.
• Rosenbloom v. Adams
  552 F.2d 1336· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the pleadings, though inartfully drawn, were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and that an insider's status alone does not bar a Rule 10b-5 claim.
• Albright v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  531 F.2d 132· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A federal court's jurisdiction upon removal is determined by the pleadings at the time of removal, and subsequent events reducing the amount in controversy do not divest jurisdiction, even if the same judge previously found the claim insufficient.
• Sims v. The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  520 F.2d 556· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-25 ·cited 6×
  A shipowner cannot recover indemnity from a wharfinger for litigation expenses absent a breach of an implied warranty of workmanlike service owed by the wharfinger to the shipowner.
• Kent v. The N. Cal. Reg'l Off. OF the Am. Friends Serv. Comm.
  497 F.2d 1325· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the interpleader and injunctive relief actions because the trustees lacked standing and the interpleader statute's requirements were not met.
• Judge M. Mullins v. Beatrice Pocahontas Co.
  489 F.2d 260· 4th Cir.· 1974-01-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court must determine whether diversity jurisdiction existed at the time the complaint was filed, as the record was unclear regarding the defendant corporation's principal place of business.
• Benton C. Sullens v. Bryant S. Carroll, Jr.
  446 F.2d 1392· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-13 ·cited 6×
  Court-appointed counsel in federal criminal cases are immune from malpractice suits.
• Friedman v. Golden Arrow Films, Inc.
  442 F.2d 1099· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the fraud claim was unsupported by evidence, but the breach of contract claim could proceed, remanding for further findings on substantial performance and damages, and ordering a partnership accounting.
• Johnston v. The Cordell Nat'l Bank
  421 F.2d 1310· 10th Cir.· 1970-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in considering a homestead exemption claim filed after the complaint was instituted as determinative of citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.
• Gaetano DiPAOLA v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co., Inc.
  418 F.2d 906· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the parties' failure to present a clear record regarding contractual relationships and the nature of the arrangement between I.T.O. and Pier 8 necessitated a remand for further proceedings to establish federal jurisdiction.
• Napletana v. Hillsdale Coll.
  385 F.2d 871· 6th Cir.· 1967-11-24 ·cited 6×
  A married woman can establish a domicile separate from her husband for diversity jurisdiction purposes if she resides in a state with the intent to remain there.
• Breault v. Feigenholtz
  380 F.2d 90· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-13 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite jurisdictional amount for a federal diversity action to set aside a will, as the action sought an adjudication of validity, not a money judgment, and required substantial proof of value beyond mere allegations.
• Graziano v. Pennell
  371 F.2d 761· 2d Cir.· 1967-01-06 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiff could not use New York's CPLR § 205(a) to revive a time-barred claim in federal court when a prior timely action was still pending and dismissed for reasons other than those specified in the statute.
• Lewis v. Lewis
  358 F.2d 495· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the corporations were indispensable parties and that diversity jurisdiction was lacking as to them, requiring dismissal of claims against them.
• Bruton v. Shank
  349 F.2d 630· 8th Cir.· 1965-09-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to vacate the judgment and remand the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction was properly denied because the defendant was domiciled in California at the time the action commenced, and the plaintiff's delay in raising the issue after tr
• Alpha Distrib. Co. OF Cal., Inc. v. Distillery
  304 F.2d 451· 9th Cir.· 1962-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Wheeler v. Dell Publ'g Co.
  300 F.2d 372· 7th Cir.· 1962-03-12 ·cited 6×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that plaintiffs were not reasonably identifiable with fictional characters in the novel and film, and thus stated no cause of action for libel or invasion of privacy. Claims were also not barred by the statute of limitations.
• Perkins v. Cingliano
  296 F.2d 567· 4th Cir.· 1961-11-13 ·cited 6×
  A district court's order permitting a party to sue in forma pauperis does not automatically grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
• Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Woosley
  287 F.2d 531· 10th Cir.· 1961-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the claims of multiple assignees who collectively met the jurisdictional amount, even if individual assignments were below that threshold.
• Brocki v. Am. Express Co.
  279 F.2d 785· 6th Cir.· 1960-06-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant, an unincorporated joint-stock association under New York law, could not be considered a citizen of New York for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
• Feuchtwanger Corp. v. Lake Hiawatha Fed. Credit Union
  272 F.2d 453· 3d Cir.· 1959-11-20 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that a federally chartered credit union, localized to a single community, is considered a citizen of that state for diversity jurisdiction purposes. The court also held that evidence of the machinery's failure to perform as specified in the escrow agreement was rel
• Miller v. The Del.
  241 F.2d 116· 2d Cir.· 1957-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the motion for a new trial and that the verdict was supported by the evidence.
• Davis v. Ray M. Foreman & the United States
  239 F.2d 579· 7th Cir.· 1956-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The district court did not err in dismissing the action against both the United States and Foreman.
• United States v. Hendrickson
  200 F.2d 137· 7th Cir.· 1952-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the allegedly false testimony denying liquor sales was material to the dram shop case, and therefore, the defendant could be convicted of suborning perjury based on that testimony.
• Soderstrom v. Kungsholm Baking Co., Inc.
  189 F.2d 1008· 7th Cir.· 1951-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that George Soderstrom's suit was properly dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction, as he was an Illinois resident, and affirmed the trial court's judgment granting John Soderstrom relief and ordering an accounting.
• Tower Realty Co. v. City of E. Detroit
  185 F.2d 590· 6th Cir.· 1950-12-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was not properly established due to insufficient evidence regarding the plaintiff's independent business purpose and genuine acquisition of assets. The case was remanded for further factual development.
• Burges v. Proctor & Gamble Def. Corp.
  172 F.2d 541· 5th Cir.· 1949-02-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal of the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens was improper, and the case should be remanded for consideration of a change of venue under the new Judicial Code.
• Tademy v. Scott
  157 F.2d 826· 5th Cir.· 1946-10-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal court sitting in Georgia must apply Georgia's statutory notice requirement for libel actions, making the plaintiff's suit premature.
• Norwood Lumber Corp. v. McKEAN
  153 F.2d 753· 3d Cir.· 1946-02-05 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A plaintiff in a diversity case need not prove damages equal to the jurisdictional amount to maintain federal jurisdiction, and the trial court erred in excluding evidence relevant to the plaintiff's damages for breach of contract.
• Oils, Inc. v. Blankenship
  145 F.2d 354· 10th Cir.· 1944-10-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction because the action was no longer ancillary to the original proceeding after the receiver was discharged and the corporations' assets were returned to their control.
• Thomason v. Works Projects Administration
  138 F.2d 342· 9th Cir.· 1943-10-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Works Projects Administration, as an executive agency, is immune from suit, and absent diversity of citizenship, the court lacks jurisdiction over individual defendants.
• Petition of Henneman
  137 F.2d 627· 1st Cir.· 1943-08-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while a writ of mandamus can compel a district court to decide issues related to removal, it cannot be used to review a remand order itself, and in this case, the district court's stated view made the writ unnecessary.
• Jeffcott v. Donovan
  135 F.2d 213· 9th Cir.· 1943-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the pleadings failed to allege citizenship, only residence.
• Brown v. Coumanis
  135 F.2d 163· 5th Cir.· 1943-04-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Norris-La Guardia Act does not create federal jurisdiction for employers seeking injunctions against labor disputes, even if procedural conditions are met.
• People of State of Cal. ex rel. McCOLGAN v. Bruce
  129 F.2d 421· 9th Cir.· 1942-06-26 ·cited 6×
  A state's action to collect its own taxes from a citizen of another state does not fall within federal court jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship or arising under federal internal revenue laws.
• Graver Tank & Mfg. Corp. v. New England Terminal Co.
  125 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1942-01-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant waived its venue privilege by failing to assert it seasonably, and thus the District Court had jurisdiction.