Diversity Of Citizenship

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

• Am. Fed'n of Musicians v. Stein
  213 F.2d 679· 6th Cir.· 1954-06-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, as the Norris-LaGuardia Act was inapplicable and the jurisdictional question regarding diversity of citizenship was a substantial issue for the district court to determine.
• Stine v. Moore
  213 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1954-06-09 ·cited 44×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The court held that the defendant's domicile and citizenship had changed to Louisiana, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction.
• Bomze v. Nardis Sportswear, Inc.
  165 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1948-01-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the service of process on the defendant corporation was valid under New York law because the defendant was doing sufficient business in the state and the cause of action arose from those activities, and that the process server exercised due diligence.
• Solomon v. Solomon
  516 F.2d 1018· 3d Cir.· 1975-05-02 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the assertion of a defense based on a severable visitation clause in a contract does not divest federal courts of diversity jurisdiction in a contract action, and the "domestic relations exception" does not bar such suits.
• Schuckman v. Rubenstein
  164 F.2d 952· 6th Cir.· 1947-12-12 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the dismissal of the complaint was proper due to lack of diversity jurisdiction and the failure to join indispensable parties, specifically a majority of the board of directors.
• Carlsberg Res. Corp. v. Cambria Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  554 F.2d 1254· 3d Cir.· 1977-05-04 ·cited 41×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The dissenting judge argues that the citizenship of limited partners should not be counted for diversity jurisdiction purposes, as they are not proper parties to suits against the partnership under state law.
• Sarnoff v. Ciaglia
  165 F.2d 167· 3d Cir.· 1947-12-22 ·cited 41×
  Summary judgment is inappropriate when material facts are disputed and credibility must be assessed.
• Geras v. Lafayette Display Fixtures, Inc.
  742 F.2d 1037· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 40×
  The statute allowing magistrates to preside over and enter judgments in federal civil trials, even with party consent, violates Article III's guarantee of judicial independence.
• Sutter v. Groen
  687 F.2d 197· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the sale of 100% of a business's stock is not a "security" transaction under Rule 10b-5, but a presumption of entrepreneurship applies when acquiring over 50% of a corporation's stock, which can be rebutted.
• Marv Hixon v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
  671 F.2d 1005· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 40×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A pendent party must independently satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, and a principal is generally not liable for the torts of an independent contractor unless the activity is inherently hazardous or the contractor was negligently selected.
• Gatenby v. Altoona Aviation Corp. & Paul Peterson
  407 F.2d 443· 3d Cir.· 1968-12-19 ·cited 40×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the pilot's actions constituted negligence per se as a matter of law.
• Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Breslin
  332 F.2d 928· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court misconstrued the burden of proof regarding accidental death under an insurance policy, requiring a remand for further findings. The court also affirmed the denial of a continuance and the striking of a jury demand.
• Janzen v. Wilber W. Goos and Ivan Gottula
  302 F.2d 421· 8th Cir.· 1962-04-27 ·cited 40×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The court held that the plaintiff's change of domicile to Kansas, with the intent to reside there permanently, established her citizenship in Kansas, thereby creating diversity jurisdiction.
• Jaftex Corp. v. Randolph Mills, Inc.
  282 F.2d 508· 2d Cir.· 1960-08-22 ·cited 40×
  The court held that federal courts sitting in a state cannot exercise jurisdiction over a foreign corporation unless the state has provided for such jurisdiction, absent specific federal statutory provision.
• Van Sant v. Am. Express Co.
  169 F.2d 355· 3d Cir.· 1947-10-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that amendments to pleadings to properly allege diversity jurisdiction are permissible, and a statute of limitations defense is waived if not timely pleaded.
• In re Standard GAS & Elec. Co. Hastings v. H. M. Byllesby & Co.
  119 F.2d 658· 3d Cir.· 1941-04-23 ·cited 40×
  A reorganization court under Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act cannot issue process for service outside its territorial limits in a plenary suit against adverse claimants, even if the suit involves the debtor's property.
• Trent Realty Assocs. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Philadelphia
  657 F.2d 29· 3d Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 39×
  The court held that federal subject matter jurisdiction was lacking due to potential lack of diversity and the absence of a federal question on the face of the complaint. The case was remanded to the district court to verify jurisdictional facts.
• Ed Freeman and wife Sharon Freeman v. Nw. Acceptance Corp.
  754 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 38×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because complete diversity was likely absent, as the plaintiffs may have been citizens of Colorado, and the defendant corporation, through its subsidiary, also had Colorado citizenship.
• Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago under Tr. Agreement dated January 3 v. Bailey
  750 F.2d 577· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-07 ·cited 38×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The court held that Chicago Investment's cross-claim should not have been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but its counterclaim was properly dismissed as it was not the real party in interest.
• Ezzat E. Majd-Pour v. Georgiana Cmty. Hosp., Inc.
  724 F.2d 901· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the denial of a temporary restraining order was proper due to lack of demonstrated jurisdiction, the case should not have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without affording the plaintiff an opportunity for discovery.
• Moheb A. H. al Sadat v. Heinz Mertes
  615 F.2d 1176· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-19 ·cited 38×
  A naturalized U.S. citizen domiciled abroad, who also holds citizenship in a foreign state, cannot invoke alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) if the opposing party is a U.S. citizen domiciled in the same state, due to the complete diversity rule.
• Clement J. Sheeran v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  593 F.2d 93· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the equitable estoppel claims were barred by Washington's three-year statute of limitations and that the appellants had waived their right to challenge the removal of the case to federal court.
• Dinwiddie v. Brown
  230 F.2d 465· 5th Cir.· 1956-03-07 ·cited 37×
  The court held that allegations of fraud and the existence of state segregation laws, without more, do not state a federal cause of action cognizable in federal court absent diversity jurisdiction.
• Resnik v. LA PAZ Guest Ranch
  289 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1961-04-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that an appeal from an order vacating a judgment is interlocutory and non-appealable, and that partial assignees are not necessarily indispensable parties whose joinder is required to maintain diversity jurisdiction.
• Lobato v. PAY Less Drug Stores, Inc.
  261 F.2d 406· 10th Cir.· 1958-11-17 ·cited 36×
• Underwood v. Maloney
  256 F.2d 334· 3d Cir.· 1958-03-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that federal courts must apply state law to determine the capacity of unincorporated associations to sue or be sued in diversity cases, and that Pennsylvania law prohibits class actions by or against such associations, thus requiring dismissal for lack of diversity
• Molnar v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  231 F.2d 684· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-04 ·cited 36×
  A federal court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even on its own initiative, if the pleadings do not affirmatively establish jurisdiction, particularly when fictitious defendants are used to obscure citizenship.
• Hamilton Foundry & Mach. Co. v. Int'l Molders & Foundry Workers Union of N. Am.
  193 F.2d 209· 6th Cir.· 1951-12-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that even if a contract can be validly formed orally, the alleged contract was not binding because it was not officially accepted by the Union, and furthermore, it was barred by the Ohio Statute of Frauds as it was not to be performed within one year.
• Bennett v. Bennett
  682 F.2d 1039· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 35×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that federal courts can enforce state custody decrees and that a party should not be forced to waive injunctive relief to proceed in federal court.
• Hawes v. Club Ecuestre EL Comandante
  535 F.2d 140· 1st Cir.· 1976-05-05 ·cited 35×
  Local Rule 5 of the District of Puerto Rico, requiring nondomiciliary plaintiffs to post security for costs, is not per se unconstitutional or inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provided it is applied judiciously.
• Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Anderson
  746 F.2d 1563· D.C. Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the "clear and convincing evidence" standard and the requirement for independent judicial determination of actual malice do not apply at the summary judgment stage in public figure libel cases. The court also rejected the "libel-proof" plaintiff doctrine.
• Mrs. Georgia Ann Toms v. Country Quality Meats, Inc.
  610 F.2d 313· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-24 ·cited 34×·via Complete Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding Country Quality Meats, Inc.'s principal place of business was Georgia, and that plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint to properly allege jurisdiction.
• Parke-Davis & Co. v. Stromsodt
  411 F.2d 1390· 8th Cir.· 1969-06-09 ·cited 34×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support findings of proximate causation, breach of implied warranty, and negligence.
• Anne Arnold and Edward E. Arnold v. Tex Troccoli
  344 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1965-05-03 ·cited 34×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A district court has the power to dismiss diversity suits where it is clear to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional minimum amount.
• Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occidental S.S. Co.
  287 F.2d 252· 5th Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 34×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A case removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction must affirmatively demonstrate the jurisdictional amount at the time of removal; a plaintiff's complaint stating damages "in excess of $5,000" does not meet the federal requirement of exceeding $10,000.
• Kerr v. Compagnie de Ultramar & Transmar Corp.
  250 F.2d 860· 2d Cir.· 1958-01-08 ·cited 34×
  A federal court has the power to dismiss a non-diverse, dispensable defendant to retain diversity jurisdiction, and failure to do so when no prejudice results is an abuse of discretion.
• Panos Giannakos v. M/V Bravo Trader
  762 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a district court cannot enforce a settlement agreement if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the parties' consent or conduct.
• Kehr v. Smith Barney
  736 F.2d 1283· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on attorney misconduct, correctly denied judgment n.o.v. for failure to prove scienter, and lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration of state claims a
• Carter Ray Scott v. Fancher
  369 F.2d 842· 5th Cir.· 1966-12-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper and the exclusion of expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
• Shahmoon Indus., Inc. v. Imperato
  338 F.2d 449· 3d Cir.· 1964-11-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the record presented sufficient doubt regarding the plaintiff's principal place of business to warrant a further factual inquiry by the district court to determine if diversity jurisdiction was properly established.
• Elizabeth Hosp., Inc. v. Fount Richardson
  269 F.2d 167· 8th Cir.· 1959-07-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege a claim under Arkansas law or the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, as the alleged conspiracy did not substantially and directly restrain interstate commerce.
• Ill. Terminal R. Co. v. Friedman
  208 F.2d 675· 8th Cir.· 1953-11-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that parties may amend pleadings to establish diversity jurisdiction, and that the admission of evidence regarding another bridge's surface was not prejudicial error.
• John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kraft
  200 F.2d 952· 2d Cir.· 1953-01-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to grant interpleader and that the order continuing the injunction was appealable.
• Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Newtowne MFG. Co.
  187 F.2d 675· 1st Cir.· 1951-03-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the shipper's failure to file a written claim with the carrier, as required by the bill of lading, barred recovery from the carrier, and that the insurance policy covered the loss because it occurred after the goods were delivered into the custody of a public
• Schoen v. Mountain Producers Corp.
  170 F.2d 707· 3d Cir.· 1948-11-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the venue statute for stockholder derivative suits requires diversity of citizenship between the injured corporation and the defendants for the special venue provision to apply. It also held that corporate defendants waived improper venue objections by not rai
• Philco Corp. v. Phillips MFG. Co.
  133 F.2d 663· 7th Cir.· 1943-01-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that federal law governs trademark infringement and unfair competition cases involving registered trademarks used in interstate commerce, and federal courts should exercise independent judgment in interpreting the Trade-Mark Act of 1905, rather than applying state
• Shell OIL Co. v. Frusetta
  290 F.2d 689· 9th Cir.· 1961-05-24 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Shell's declaratory judgment action, as it was an attempt to forum shop and avoid state court litigation.
• Grigg v. S. Pac. Co.
  246 F.2d 613· 9th Cir.· 1957-06-28 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court's finding that the consignee, Coon, had exclusive possession and control of the mules at the time of the accident was correct, thus absolving the railroad of liability.
• Fakouri v. Cadais
  147 F.2d 667· 5th Cir.· 1945-02-22 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a nuncupative testament by public act is void if it does not expressly state on its face that the will was dictated to the notary and written down by him in the presence of the witnesses, as required by Louisiana law.
• Crowder v. Gordons Transports, Inc.
  387 F.2d 413· 8th Cir.· 1967-12-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the amended complaint relates back to the original filing date under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus the action was timely commenced.