Diversity Of Citizenship

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

• Frazier v. Ala. Motor Club, Inc.
  349 F.2d 456· 5th Cir.· 1965-08-09 ·cited 23×
  A corporation is 'doing business' in a judicial district for venue purposes if its activities there are continuous and systematic, even if it does not solicit business or have offices there, especially when its principal place of business and management are located in that distri
• Berkowitz v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp.
  303 F.2d 585· 3d Cir.· 1962-05-31 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the lower court erred by dismissing the case on the merits without first determining the crucial issue of diversity jurisdiction.
• Troup v. McCART
  238 F.2d 289· 5th Cir.· 1956-11-14 ·cited 23×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the lower court correctly dismissed the action for lack of federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff's individual claim did not meet the $3,000 threshold and the action was not a 'true' class action allowing for aggregation of claims.
• Tejas Dev. Co. v. McGOUGH Bros.
  165 F.2d 276· 5th Cir.· 1947-12-30 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the federal Arbitration Act does not govern state law contracts, and that arbitration awards can be invalidated by arbitrator misconduct or by a party's revocation of the submission before an award is made.
• Shaver v. F.W. Woolworth Co.
  840 F.2d 1361· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge argued that the majority's novel res judicata theory was unsupported and raised significant federalism concerns, and that summary judgment on the merits was inappropriate.
• Anand Prakash v. Am. Univ.
  727 F.2d 1174· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in invalidating the minimum wage requirement for FLSA professional exemptions and in dismissing the case on diversity grounds without an evidentiary hearing. Pendent jurisdiction exists for the local law claims.
• Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co. & Halliburton Co.
  688 F.2d 256· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-16 ·cited 22×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court granted appellants leave to amend their pleadings to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, remanding the case for that purpose.
• Mich. Tech Fund v. Century Nat'l Bank OF Broward
  680 F.2d 736· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 22×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over claims seeking interpretation of a will, reformation of a mortgage, and adjudication of contract breaches, even when a state probate proceeding is pending, as long as the federal court does not interfere with the probate proceedings
• Wis. Elec. Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Pennant Prods., Inc.
  619 F.2d 676· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 22×
  Personal jurisdiction exists over the defendant because its agents conducted activities within Wisconsin related to the contract, distinguishing it from prior precedent.
• The Oneida Indian Nation OF NEW York State v. The Cnty. OF Oneida
  464 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 22×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The court should interpret "arising under" jurisdiction broadly for Indian tribes under 28 U.S.C. § 1362, allowing federal court adjudication of treaty-based claims.
• Esposito v. Emery
  402 F.2d 878· 3d Cir.· 1968-10-02 ·cited 22×
  Artificially manufactured diversity jurisdiction, created solely by appointing a nonresident guardian for a minor, is insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.
• Rhodes v. Dwain L. Jones
  351 F.2d 884· 8th Cir.· 1965-10-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that res judicata bars the current action because the claims and subject matter are identical to a prior case, even with a different jurisdictional basis.
• United States v. Preston
  352 F.2d 352· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the United States and the individual defendants, as the claims did not fall under the cited statutes and no diversity jurisdiction existed.
• Russell v. NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co. & Consumers Pub. Power Dist.
  325 F.2d 996· 8th Cir.· 1964-01-06 ·cited 22×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction, as her testimony indicated she was a citizen of Nebraska when the suit was filed.
• Johnson v. Stone
  268 F.2d 803· 7th Cir.· 1959-06-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under either Illinois common law or federal civil rights statutes.
• Kaye-Martin v. Pierce P. Brooks
  267 F.2d 394· 7th Cir.· 1959-06-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's limited activity in Illinois, which was for the convenience of attending a convention and not for the purpose of transacting business out of which the cause of action arose, did not constitute "the transaction of any business within this State"
• Kleinman v. Betty Dain Creations, Inc.
  189 F.2d 546· 2d Cir.· 1951-05-17 ·cited 22×
  A federal court lacks dependent jurisdiction over a state law contract claim when it is joined with a patent infringement claim, if the claims do not arise from a substantially identical set of facts and the contract claim is not ancillary to the patent claim.
• McCOMB v. McCORMACK
  159 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1947-01-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the claims and cross-claims, that its findings of fact regarding the survey were supported by substantial evidence, and that the admission of certain evidence was harmless error.
• Div. 525 v. Gorman
  133 F.2d 273· 8th Cir.· 1943-02-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction and correctly found that the contract had been legally cancelled, affirming the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit.
• The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dingwell
  884 F.2d 629· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-07 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment action for failure to join indispensable parties and its denial of the insurers' motions to intervene in the indemnification action.
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hillman
  796 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 21×·via Complete Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the substitution of USF&G for Aetna did not cure the lack of diversity jurisdiction because the original plaintiff lacked standing, rendering the amendment a new lawsuit, and subsequent events do not create jurisdiction.
• REX v. CIA. Pervana de Vapores
  660 F.2d 61· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-17 ·cited 21×
  The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) is unconstitutional insofar as it denies plaintiffs a jury trial in actions against foreign state-owned corporations engaged in commercial activities.
• Clark Equip. Co. & Clark Equip. v. Keller
  570 F.2d 778· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings regarding CEAG's personal jurisdiction and the validity of the 503 patent, finding no error in the analysis of prior art or obviousness.
• Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alejandro Alfonzo-Larrain R.
  854 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 20×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The court agrees with the majority's result and much of its reasoning, while also sympathizing with the dissent's concerns about jurisdictional errors.
• Local Union 598 v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co.
  846 F.2d 1213· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 20×·via Complete Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the Washington state prevailing wage statute, which mandates employer contributions to employee benefit plans, is preempted by Section 514(a) of ERISA because it 'relates to' and 'purports to regulate' such plans.
• Harris v. Illinois-California Express, Inc.
  687 F.2d 1361· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 20×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  Permissive intervention of a party whose presence is not indispensable does not destroy diversity jurisdiction, even if their subsequent joinder as a defendant creates a situation where a plaintiff and defendant share the same state of citizenship.
• McKENZIE v. United States
  678 F.2d 571· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-14 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the judgment for the United States in the FTCA action, finding no clear error in the factual determination that the dog was not owned by a government employee. The court vacated the judgment in the removed state action, finding the district court lacked subject
• Cnty. OF Monroe v. State OF Fla. & State of N.Y.
  678 F.2d 1124· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-04 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge holds that federal law does not create a cause of action for a county to sue another state for extradition expenses, and therefore the Eleventh Amendment does not bar such a suit.
• Reed v. Robilio
  376 F.2d 392· 6th Cir.· 1967-04-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in realigning the executor bank as a plaintiff for diversity jurisdiction purposes, as its antagonism toward the plaintiff's claim warranted alignment as a defendant.
• The Cong. OF Racial Equal. v. Douglas
  318 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was an unconstitutional abridgement of First Amendment rights and an abuse of discretion because there was no evidence that CORE intended to foment violence or that a clear and present danger existed.
• Walker v. United States Gypsum Co.
  270 F.2d 857· 4th Cir.· 1959-10-05 ·cited 20×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A manufacturer performing construction work for itself, even if not for others, can be a statutory employer under Virginia's Workmen's Compensation Act, making the injured subcontractor's employee's exclusive remedy a proceeding before the Industrial Commission.
• Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co. v. Steinheider
  268 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1959-07-22 ·cited 20×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the value of the right to be free from the defendant's competition exceeded $10,000, thus affirming the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• United States v. Marshall
  230 F.2d 183· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-30 ·cited 20×
  The United States is not relieved of liability by the Railroad's intervening negligence because the Railroad's actions were not a superseding cause, as the United States should have foreseen the possibility of such negligent conduct.
• Farmland Irrigation Co., Inc. v. Dopplmaier
  220 F.2d 247· 9th Cir.· 1955-03-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to intervene was proper because the applicant failed to demonstrate inadequate representation by the existing party.
• Erwin v. Barrow
  217 F.2d 522· 10th Cir.· 1954-11-12 ·cited 20×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that Oklahoma venue statutes, when construed in light of federal diversity jurisdiction, did not preclude an administrator from suing in federal court when the land was located within the federal district.
• Yuba Consolidated Gold Fields v. Kilkeary
  206 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1953-08-07 ·cited 20×
  A complaint seeking to enjoin multiple lawsuits to prevent a multiplicity of suits states a claim upon which relief can be granted, even if some individual claims are below the jurisdictional amount, as the equity jurisdiction extends to the entire controversy.
• Stern v. Beer
  200 F.2d 794· 6th Cir.· 1952-12-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended in trial or appellate courts, and such amendments relate back to the original filing date if jurisdiction actually existed.
• Giordano v. Radio Corp. of Am.
  183 F.2d 558· 3d Cir.· 1950-07-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish the jurisdictional amount for an individual claim, and the suit could not proceed as a class action.
• Rosenberg v. Baum
  153 F.2d 10· 10th Cir.· 1946-01-08 ·cited 20×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the federal court had jurisdiction to determine heir interests and that the evidence did not establish that Birdie held property in trust for Harry or that Harry's estate was not consumed by Birdie's expenditures.
• United States v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y.
  142 F.2d 726· 2d Cir.· 1944-05-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the subcontractor (plaintiff) was liable for the cost of repairs due to defective materials and workmanship, as it had adopted the government's guarantee clause and failed to prove its own performance.
• Andrews v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
  124 F.2d 788· 7th Cir.· 1941-11-15 ·cited 20×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  Individual policyholder claims against a mutual insurance company's surplus funds are several and cannot be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional amount if each claim individually falls below that threshold.
• Am. Broad. Co. v. Wahl Co.
  121 F.2d 412· 2d Cir.· 1941-06-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the second and third causes of action were properly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction due to insufficient diversity of citizenship, not on the merits.
• Taylor v. Nelson
  788 F.2d 220· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-11 ·cited 19×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear appeals from both the order denying a stay pending arbitration and the order vacating the arbitration award, and that the motion to vacate was untimely filed.
• Nicolae Dragan v. John and Sylvia Miller
  679 F.2d 712· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 19×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction over a suit that, despite its labels, is effectively a challenge to a will's validity due to undue influence, as such claims are ancillary to probate proceedings in Illinois.
• Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co.
  600 F.2d 15· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-03 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court must determine if subject matter jurisdiction exists due to insufficient pleading of diversity of citizenship.
• Dassinger v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co.
  505 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-20 ·cited 19×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and in granting summary judgment for the defendant.
• Stifel v. Hopkins
  477 F.2d 1116· 6th Cir.· 1973-05-01 ·cited 19×
  The court holds that the rule that prisoners removed from their domicile do not lose it should not be an absolute presumption.
• Dacey v. The Fla. BAR, Inc.
  414 F.2d 195· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-22 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Bar, as an integral part of the state's judicial branch, is an agency of the State of Florida and thus immune from diversity jurisdiction suits.
• Eagle Star Ins. Co. v. Augustin Maltes
  313 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1963-03-01 ·cited 19×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the claims of multiple judgment creditors against an insurer cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy when they sue directly on their individual judgments, as they lack a common and undivided interest.
• Minsky's Follies of Fla., Inc. v. Sennes
  206 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1953-08-06 ·cited 19×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that a claim for loss of use of premises under an oral lease longer than one year is barred by the Statute of Frauds, but claims for expenses incurred at the defendant's request are not barred and federal jurisdiction is determined by the amount in controversy as a