Diversity Of Citizenship

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

• John Birch Soc'y v. Nat'l Broad. Co.
  377 F.2d 194· 2d Cir.· 1967-05-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the complaints failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of diversity of citizenship, and the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
• Sears v. ALL States Life Ins. Co.
  246 F.2d 161· 5th Cir.· 1957-06-10 ·cited 30×
  The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The court found no infringement of trademark or service mark rights and no unfair competition, concluding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the appellants' and appellee's businesses, despite the similarity in names. The
• Bulova Watch Co., Inc. v. Steele
  194 F.2d 567· 5th Cir.· 1952-02-21 ·cited 30×
• Okla. Natural Gas Co. v. McKEE
  121 F.2d 583· 10th Cir.· 1941-06-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence justified submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury and that the appellate court would not review the denial of a new trial based on an allegedly excessive verdict absent evidence of passion or prejudice.
• Stool v. J. C. Penney Co., Inc.
  404 F.2d 562· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-18 ·cited 29×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A covenant to repair in a lease does not impose a duty to repair until the covenantor has received notice or knowledge of the condition of disrepair, unless the lease explicitly states otherwise.
• Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Dan A. Ditmore, M.D., & Sea Island, P.C.
  729 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted on claims of deceit and unfair practices, as genuine issues of material fact existed regarding misrepresentation and state of mind. The dismissal of the declaratory relief count was affirmed, but the restitution count wa
• In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  542 F.2d 297· 5th Cir.· 1976-11-12 ·cited 28×
  The court en banc affirmed the panel's decision, holding that the district court's order remanding the case was reviewable and that the district court erred in applying judicial estoppel to find a lack of diversity.
• Chavez v. Freshpict Foods, Inc.
  456 F.2d 890· 10th Cir.· 1972-03-13 ·cited 28×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that federal regulatory statutes do not create an implied private right of action unless Congress expressly intends it or a compelling federal interest exists.
• Caribbean Mills, Inc. v. Kramer
  392 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1968-01-26 ·cited 28×
• Krisel v. Duran
  386 F.2d 179· 2d Cir.· 1967-12-06 ·cited 28×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The Economic Development Administration (EDA) of Puerto Rico is not a citizen of Puerto Rico for diversity jurisdiction purposes, even if it engages in proprietary functions.
• Borror v. Sharon Steel Co.
  327 F.2d 165· 3d Cir.· 1964-01-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the administrator, as a statutory representative with diverse citizenship, has the capacity to sue under Rule 17(a) and that the court has jurisdiction over the wrongful death action, potentially through pendent jurisdiction with the survival action.
• Toledo v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen
  132 F.2d 265· 7th Cir.· 1942-12-16 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the controversy did not arise under federal law, and alternatively, that the plaintiff forfeited its right to injunctive relief by refusing to arbitrate.
• A.W. Hemmings v. Barian
  822 F.2d 688· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-12 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the six-year statute of limitations for Wisconsin's RICO statute applies to federal RICO claims, and that the district court prematurely dismissed the fraud claim for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Solomon v. Cont'l Am. Life Ins. Co.
  472 F.2d 1043· 3d Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a district court's order transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) will not be disturbed by writ of mandamus unless the court exceeded its authority or acted outside its jurisdiction, and the conditions imposed on costs were within the court's discretion.
• Paz R. Hernandez v. The Travelers Ins. Co.
  489 F.2d 721· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-19 ·cited 26×
  In a direct action by an employee against their employer's workmen's compensation insurer, the insurer is deemed a citizen of the state of which the insured employer is a citizen for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
• Moor v. Madigan
  458 F.2d 1217· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-12 ·cited 26×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that a county is not a 'person' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law cannot create municipal liability under § 1988 if it contradicts federal law. It also held that pendent state claims against a municipality cannot be brought in federal court if no federal claim
• Tanzymore v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
  457 F.2d 1320· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-29 ·cited 26×
  A district court may determine jurisdictional facts without an evidentiary hearing if the plaintiff has had a fair opportunity to present their case.
• Simpson v. Knut Knutsen
  444 F.2d 523· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that under general maritime law, damages for loss of consortium were not recoverable, and affirmed the application of comparative negligence. The court remanded the issue of income tax deduction for reconsideration.
• Rogers v. Bates
  431 F.2d 16· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·cited 26×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The appointment of a conservator for a living person solely to manufacture federal diversity jurisdiction is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1359, and the citizenship of the conservator is disregarded in such cases.
• Weems v. Louis Dreyfus Corp.
  380 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-22 ·cited 26×
  A case that is not removable when commenced due to the presence of a resident defendant does not become removable when that defendant is dismissed by an involuntary act, such as a directed verdict.
• Temple Hoyne Buell v. Sears
  321 F.2d 468· 10th Cir.· 1963-07-29 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the lower court's judgment quieting title, but conditioned the affirmance on the defendant amending its removal petition to properly allege diversity jurisdiction.
• Saier v. State BAR OF Mich. & The Supreme Court of The State of Mich.
  293 F.2d 756· 6th Cir.· 1961-08-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant was not deprived of any right secured by the Constitution or federal law, and therefore, his complaint failed to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
• Texaco-Cities Serv. Pipe Line Co. & Clell Hedgpeth & Frank Stewart v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  283 F.2d 144· 8th Cir.· 1960-10-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that allegations of residence are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction, but defective allegations may be amended.
• Gerr v. Emrick
  283 F.2d 293· 3d Cir.· 1960-10-10 ·cited 26×
  The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is not immune from negligence suits and can be sued in federal court, as it is considered a separate entity from the Commonwealth and not entitled to sovereign immunity.
• O'Toole v. United States
  206 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1953-08-10 ·cited 26×
  The United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the torts of a member of the District of Columbia National Guard during peacetime training because the Guard is subject to significant federal control and presidential command.
• Jacobson v. New York
  206 F.2d 153· 1st Cir.· 1953-07-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of federal question jurisdiction, as the Safety Appliance Acts do not create a private right of action for passengers, and diversity jurisdiction was absent.
• Jaffe v. Philadelphia & W. R. Co.
  180 F.2d 1010· 3d Cir.· 1950-03-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appointment of an administratrix solely to create diversity jurisdiction is permissible if the appointment is valid under state law and the administratrix is the real party in interest. The court also affirmed the lower court's findings of no negligence an
• Duda v. Sterling MFG. Co.
  178 F.2d 428· 8th Cir.· 1949-11-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court lacked summary jurisdiction over pre-reorganization claims denied by the debtor, which required a plenary trial with a jury. However, claims arising from post-reorganization transfers without court authority were within summary jurisdictio
• Givens v. Moll
  177 F.2d 765· 5th Cir.· 1949-11-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the complaint failed to establish federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship or a federal question, and thus the dismissal was proper.
• Sheppard v. Atl. States GAS Co. OF Pa.
  167 F.2d 841· 3d Cir.· 1948-04-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the dismissal of the third-party complaint based on a covenant not to sue was premature, and the third-party claim was ancillary to the main action, justifying jurisdiction despite lack of diversity.
• Strickland v. Peters
  120 F.2d 53· 5th Cir.· 1941-05-15 ·cited 26×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction to determine the validity of wills, as this power is exclusively vested in the state probate court, but it can determine the validity of deeds and protect the estate through a receiver if necessary.
• Johnson v. Riverland Levee Dist.
  117 F.2d 711· 8th Cir.· 1941-02-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the federal court lacked jurisdiction due to destroyed diversity of citizenship and the existence of an adequate remedy at law under Missouri statutes, precluding equitable relief.
• Kaikilani Robinson Walsh v. Centeio
  692 F.2d 1239· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 25×
  The Ninth Circuit held that the abuse of discretion standard applies to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to join indispensable parties.
• Nunn v. Feltinton
  294 F.2d 450· 5th Cir.· 1961-09-15 ·cited 25×
  The joinder of formal or unnecessary parties, such as Illinois stockholders, does not defeat federal diversity jurisdiction when a receiver, whose citizenship is diverse from the opposing party, is the real party in interest representing the dissolved corporation's assets.
• Matthies v. Seymour Mfg. Co.
  270 F.2d 365· 2d Cir.· 1959-09-09 ·cited 25×
  The dissenting judge would hold that a beneficiary of trusts holding corporate stock has standing to bring a shareholder derivative action, even if the trustees have not sued.
• Miller v. Leavenworth-Jefferson Elec. Coop., Inc.
  653 F.2d 1378· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-14 ·cited 24×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The court held that the appeal was timely and that the district court properly dismissed the employer to preserve diversity jurisdiction, affirming the jury's allocation of fault.
• Medlin v. Local 1069 OF the United Auto. Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers OF Am. (UAW). Medlin
  620 F.2d 957· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because no federal question was presented, and diversity jurisdiction was not established. Therefore, the judgment was vacated and the case remanded to state court.
• Local 1498 v. Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps.
  522 F.2d 486· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) does not apply to unions composed exclusively of federal government employees, and therefore, federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims brought under the LMRDA against such unions and their officers.
• Mina Wright v. Yackley
  459 F.2d 287· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Idaho's long-arm statute did not provide jurisdiction over a South Dakota doctor for alleged malpractice occurring in South Dakota, even though the doctor mailed prescription copies to an Idaho resident.
• Tromza v. Tecumseh Prods. Co.
  378 F.2d 601· 3d Cir.· 1967-06-05 ·cited 24×
  The judgment in favor of Tecumseh on Marquette's cross-claim is reversed, and final judgment is to be entered in favor of Marquette.
• McPHERSON v. Gerrit Hoffman
  275 F.2d 466· 6th Cir.· 1960-02-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the third-party complaint did not state a valid claim for indemnity and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the third-party defendants. The court also found that certain jury instructions were inadequate and that contributory negligence should hav
• Lowry v. The Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers
  259 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1958-09-22 ·cited 24×
  Federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all parties on each side, and an unincorporated association's citizenship is determined by its members, not its entity status.
• The Walmac Co., Inc. v. Isaacs
  220 F.2d 108· 1st Cir.· 1955-03-10 ·cited 24×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The court held that the district court had federal jurisdiction over the interpleader action based on ancillary jurisdiction, even though the plaintiff and one claimant were co-citizens, and affirmed the denial of injunctive relief, finding no abuse of discretion on the record.
• Broady v. Ill. Cent. R. Co.
  191 F.2d 73· 7th Cir.· 1951-07-25 ·cited 24×
  The District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the employee's claims for reinstatement and back wages, as these disputes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railway Adjustment Board or require diversity of citizenship for federal court adjudication.
• Weaver v. Marcus
  165 F.2d 862· 4th Cir.· 1948-01-31 ·cited 24×
  A district court's denial of a motion to dismiss a party to preserve diversity jurisdiction is reversible error if based on a misconception of law regarding partnership liability.
• Crabb v. Welden Bros.
  164 F.2d 797· 8th Cir.· 1947-12-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that employees working on the original construction of the Alcan Highway were not engaged in interstate commerce for FLSA purposes, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over claims based on Executive Order 9240.
• Chidester v. City OF Newark
  162 F.2d 598· 3d Cir.· 1947-06-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that heirs of a grantor are not indispensable parties in an ejectment action if their interests are not joint and would not be affected by the judgment, and that deeds with ambiguous descriptions are locatable with extrinsic evidence under New Jersey law.
• Spurgeon v. Mission State Bank
  151 F.2d 702· 8th Cir.· 1945-11-06 ·cited 24×
  An emancipated minor, capable of exercising discretion, can acquire a domicile of choice, and the federal court had jurisdiction based on the minor's Kansas domicile.
• King v. Wall & Beaver St. Corp.
  145 F.2d 377· D.C. Cir.· 1944-10-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a derivative action could not be maintained in the District of Columbia against individuals domiciled elsewhere, even if temporarily present, if the indispensable corporate party could not be properly served within the court's jurisdiction.
• Alderman v. Elgin
  125 F.2d 971· 7th Cir.· 1942-02-10 ·cited 24×
  An appellate court cannot permit amendments to cure jurisdictional defects; such amendments must be made in the trial court. Federal jurisdiction requires diversity of citizenship and sufficient amount in controversy for all plaintiffs.