Diversity Of Citizenship

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

• Splendour Shipping & Enters. Co., Inc. v. Bd. OF Comm'rs OF the Port OF NEW Orleans
  477 F.2d 122· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans is not immune from suit in tort as a matter of Louisiana state law, and thus cannot assert sovereign immunity in federal court.
• Murray v. Wilson OAK Flooring Co., Inc.
  475 F.2d 129· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-05 ·cited 2×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the warning on the adhesive can was insufficient to inform the plaintiff of the specific risk of explosion, making the question of contributory negligence a jury issue.
• Wyly v. Burlington Indus., Inc.
  452 F.2d 807· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-21 ·cited 2×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the trial court erred by not submitting the affirmative defense of volenti non fit injuria to the jury.
• Miller v. Ira Miller
  406 F.2d 590· 10th Cir.· 1969-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of conditional delivery and attempted testamentary disposition were supported by evidence, and that indispensable parties were properly identified, thus affirming the judgment.
• Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. v. John R. Jurgensen Co. & the Am. Ins. Co.
  396 F.2d 152· 6th Cir.· 1968-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a cross claim lacking independent jurisdictional grounds and not being ancillary to the main action must be dismissed.
• Factor v. Carson
  393 F.2d 141· 7th Cir.· 1968-03-13 ·cited 2×
• The First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Okla. City v. Edwina McKEEL
  387 F.2d 741· 10th Cir.· 1967-09-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Oklahoma Deadman's Statute barred the appellee's testimony and that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding of a gift.
• Corinne Anne Staigg Neagle v. Johnson
  381 F.2d 9· 8th Cir.· 1967-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction existed despite an initial omission in the pleadings, and affirmed the lower court's decision.
• Gorsuch v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
  360 F.2d 23· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Albert J. Doig was an indispensable party to the declaratory judgment action concerning the supersedeas bond, and the failure to join him required dismissal of the action due to lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Markiewicz v. The Greyhound Corp.
  358 F.2d 26· 7th Cir.· 1966-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the tractor-trailer's speed was not the proximate cause of the collision and that the bus driver's failure to keep a proper lookout was the sole cause.
• R. H. Bouligny, Inc. v. United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  336 F.2d 160· 4th Cir.· 1964-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an unincorporated labor union is not a citizen for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and its citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its individual members.
• Douglas v. Lamoyne Green
  333 F.2d 73· 6th Cir.· 1964-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for a declaratory judgment because the claims were moot and no facts were alleged to support a declaration that the conviction was null and void.
• Deltec, Inc. v. Moya H. Laster
  326 F.2d 443· 6th Cir.· 1964-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the action was prematurely brought and the district court lacked jurisdiction for the unfair competition claim due to lack of diversity.
• Ginger v. Guardian Steel Corp.
  325 F.2d 664· 6th Cir.· 1963-12-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment because jurisdiction was lacking due to no diversity of citizenship and the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the cause of action.
• United States v. LeMAY
  322 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1963-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The United States and the Commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration are proper parties to sue and federal courts have jurisdiction over claims involving the National Housing Act, even if the corporations involved are organized under state law and lack diversity.
• Muhs v. Acme-Hamilton Mfg. Co.
  319 F.2d 843· 3d Cir.· 1963-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a motion under F.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) does not toll the time for taking an appeal, and the appeal was untimely.
• Conner v. Oren W. Spencer
  304 F.2d 485· 9th Cir.· 1962-06-01 ·cited 2×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the action was barred by Oregon's statute of limitations, as the borrowing statute applies the foreign statute of limitations and its tolling provisions, but the forum's statute of limitations provides an ultimate limit.
• Mashak v. Wilber F. Hacker
  297 F.2d 495· 7th Cir.· 1961-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely filed.
• Garcia v. Bernabe
  288 F.2d 60· 1st Cir.· 1961-03-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint's allegations of residence were insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction, but allowed for amendment to cure this defect.
• Walker v. Bruicie Walker
  274 F.2d 425· 4th Cir.· 1960-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint presented no substantial federal question, and thus the district court properly dismissed the action.
• Falk v. United States
  264 F.2d 238· 6th Cir.· 1959-02-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not grant jurisdiction to entertain an action against the United States and an individual defendant as joint tort-feasors where diversity of citizenship is lacking.
• Daviditis v. Nat'l Bank OF Mattoon
  262 F.2d 884· 7th Cir.· 1959-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claims presented did not arise under federal law.
• Hood v. James
  256 F.2d 895· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prior order fully relinquished the district court's caretaker jurisdiction, and the current suit failed to establish diversity jurisdiction.
• Yandell v. Transocean AIR Lines
  253 F.2d 622· 9th Cir.· 1957-09-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a tort committed on land, even on a U.S. possession, is not an admiralty tort, and the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• LE Boeuf v. Austrian
  240 F.2d 546· 4th Cir.· 1957-01-07 ·cited 2×
  The New York statute allowing recovery of expenses for directors sued for misconduct is not controlling in a federal bankruptcy reorganization proceeding; allowances must be governed by Chapter 10 of the Bankruptcy Act.
• Gulf Ref. Co. v. Price
  232 F.2d 25· 5th Cir.· 1956-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for all property claimed, as plaintiffs only proved prima facie title to specific sections against the defendant, who claimed no title. The judgment was reformed to reflect ownership only of those sections.
• Vaughan v. The First Nat'l Bank of Greenville
  218 F.2d 804· 5th Cir.· 1955-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the dismissal of the suit against King was proper due to insufficient pleaded facts, and the dismissal against the bank was proper for failure to provide security for costs.
• Hallmark Prods., Inc. v. Mosley
  190 F.2d 904· 8th Cir.· 1951-07-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was lacking because the parties were not diverse after realignment and the claims did not properly invoke federal law, and equity generally does not enjoin criminal prosecutions.
• Ames v. Mengel Co.
  190 F.2d 344· 2d Cir.· 1951-07-12 ·cited 2×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the claims of stockholders in a spurious class action cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal court.
• Green v. Gage
  186 F.2d 984· 5th Cir.· 1951-01-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trustee's allegations were insufficient to establish jurisdiction under Section 67 of the Bankruptcy Act, but jurisdiction existed under Section 23(b) because the defendant consented to suit in the district court.
• Soderstrom v. Kungsholm Baking Co.
  184 F.2d 756· 7th Cir.· 1950-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the January 6, 1950 order, which adopted a Special Master's report in lieu of a decree, was not a final, appealable order because it did not contain an order of any kind and violated Rule 54(a).
• Tex. Wool & Mohair Mktg. Ass'n v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.
  175 F.2d 835· 5th Cir.· 1949-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal court erred in not remanding the case to state court because the separable controversy lacked complete diversity of citizenship.
• Maljamar OIL & GAS Corp. v. Malco Refineries, Inc.
  155 F.2d 673· 10th Cir.· 1946-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the writings constituted a valid and enforceable contract obligating the buyer to pay a fixed price for oil, and that this contract was not barred by the statute of frauds under either New York or New Mexico law.
• Cannon v. Parker
  152 F.2d 706· 5th Cir.· 1945-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district judge had the authority to award attorney's fees to the plaintiffs against the assets of the corporations, as the suit protected corporate assets and benefited the corporations.
• Dilatush v. Highfill
  140 F.2d 741· 8th Cir.· 1944-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the realignment of the defendant son as a party plaintiff was not justified, as a genuine controversy existed between the plaintiff and her son, thus preserving diversity jurisdiction.
• Barber v. Powell
  135 F.2d 728· 4th Cir.· 1943-05-08 ·cited 2×
  Federal court-appointed receivers can remove a civil action from state to federal court on the ground of diversity of citizenship under the general provisions of the Judicial Code.
• Broughton v. United Gilpin Corp.
  131 F.2d 822· 7th Cir.· 1942-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that stockholders who were unaware of and did not authorize their inclusion as plaintiffs in a suit could not be deemed to have ratified their joinder by silence, especially when their testimony was credible.
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Ohio Edison Co.
  126 F.2d 423· 6th Cir.· 1942-03-12 ·cited 2×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  An insurer subrogated to an insured's rights cannot recover indemnity from a third party where the insured's own primary negligence caused the injury for which the insured was held liable.
• Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Pedrogos
  2016 WL 3746538· M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-04 ·cited 1×·via Complete Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that an insurance company may interplead disputed policy proceeds among claimants, but the funds must be deposited into the court registry, not a private trust account.
• Legg v. Voice Media Grp., Inc.
  849 F. Supp. 2d 1327· S.D. Fla.· 2014-01-03 ·cited 1×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
• Mikesell v. FIA Card Servs., N.A.
  75 F. Supp. 489· M.D. Fla.· 2013-04-04 ·cited 1×·via Complete Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the notice of removal was timely because the initial complaint did not facially establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and a subsequent settlement demand provided the necessary amount in controversy within the removal period.
• PHLD P'ship v. Arch Specialty Ins.
  565 F. Supp. 2d 1342· S.D. Fla.· 2008-07-03 ·cited 1×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to establish federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because it did not demonstrate that the proposed class had more than 100 members.
• Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
  123 F. Supp. 83· M.D. Fla.· 2003-02-04 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike defenses and motion to compel exceeding deposition limits, and granted in part defendant's motion for a protective order and stay of discovery.
• Krueger v. Cartwright
  996 F.2d 928· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-24 ·cited 1×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  A partially subrogated insurer, whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction, is not an indispensable party and can be dismissed.
• Bagdon v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
  916 F.2d 379· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-17 ·cited 1×·via Complete Diversity Of Citizenship
  A claim that a majority shareholder's competition injured the corporation is a derivative claim, requiring the corporation to be joined as a party, which destroys diversity jurisdiction.
• Griffith v. Sealtite Corp.
  903 F.2d 495· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-30 ·cited 1×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiffs' separate wage claims, even when reduced to a single judgment, could not be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional minimum amount because the underlying causes of action were separate and distinct.
• Nat'l Patent Dev. Corp. v. T.J. Smith & Nephew Ltd.
  877 F.2d 1003· D.C. Cir.· 1989-06-16 ·cited 1×
  The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has personal jurisdiction over a foreign patent holder under 35 U.S.C. § 293 in a suit concerning the ownership of United States patents. The prior narrow interpretation of the statute, limiting its application to disp
• Libby v. United States
  535 F. Supp. 667· M.D. Fla.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 1×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The court held that the "forthwith" service requirement under the Suits in Admiralty Act is a procedural requirement superseded by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j), and that the plaintiff's 24-day delay in service was reasonable and thus "forthwith."
• Fallani v. Am. Water Corp.
  574 F. Supp. 81· S.D. Fla.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 1×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction, when properly pleaded, allows a federal court to adjudicate state law claims, rendering the issue of pendent jurisdiction moot. However, specific federal claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim or lack of a private right of a
• Gunter v. Ago Intern. BV
  533 F. Supp. 86· N.D. Fla.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 1×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  Florida's Insurance Commissioner sought to enjoin a tender offer under the Florida Insurance Holding Company Act, but the federal district court held that the Williams Act preempts the Florida Act because the state law's requirement for pre-commencement approval and a sixty-day f