Diversity Of Citizenship

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

• United States v. Sentinel Fire INS. Co.
  178 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1949-08-13 ·cited 19×
• Passarella v. Hilton Int'l Co.
  810 F.2d 674· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the majority improperly substituted its judgment for the district court's reasonable conclusion regarding excusable neglect under Rule 60(b).
• Ferd Schneider v. Dumbarton Developers, Inc.
  767 F.2d 1007· D.C. Cir.· 1985-07-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellants did not substantially perform their obligations under the contract by the deadline and that the August 4 Settlement Agreement eliminated any notice and cure period. The court also found that 2106 F Street Associates, as an intervenor, was subjec
• DeBRY v. Transamerica Corp.
  601 F.2d 480· 10th Cir.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the action to federal court was proper, despite the plaintiff's subsequent change of residence.
• Lugo-Vina v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc.
  574 F.2d 41· 1st Cir.· 1978-04-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding diversity jurisdiction because the evidence did not establish New York as Pueblo's principal place of business.
• Alvah L. Snow v. Ford Motor Co.
  561 F.2d 787· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the amount in controversy for removal jurisdiction cannot be met by aggregating individual claims, even when injunctive relief is sought, if those claims are separate and distinct.
• ED & Fred, Inc. v. Puritan Marine Ins. Underwriters Corp.
  506 F.2d 757· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-17 ·cited 18×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was lacking due to incomplete diversity, but jurisdiction existed under admiralty law, requiring a remand to determine applicable law and agency facts.
• Miller v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. (hereafter AT&T)
  507 F.2d 759· 3d Cir.· 1974-11-04 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A complaint alleging directors failed to collect a debt owed by a political committee, which constituted an illegal corporate contribution in violation of federal law, states a claim for breach of fiduciary duty sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
• Roslyn Friedman v. Meyers
  482 F.2d 435· 2d Cir.· 1973-05-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding fraud, intent, and knowledge, and the prior state court decision relied upon by the trial court had been reversed on the merits.
• Green v. Hale
  433 F.2d 324· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-20 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jurisdictional rulings or the trial court's evidentiary and instructional decisions.
• Slaughter v. Toye Bros. Yellow CAB Co.
  359 F.2d 954· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proving diversity of citizenship, as he was a resident of Louisiana at the time the suit was filed.
• Wallach v. City OF Pagedale
  359 F.2d 57· 8th Cir.· 1966-04-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under federal law, both for non-compliance with pleading rules and for lack of a valid cause of action against the defendants.
• Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists v. Cornstubble
  295 F.2d 209· 5th Cir.· 1961-10-13 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority's interpretation leads to an illogical result regarding federal court access for airline labor disputes.
• Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. NEW CUT Rate Liquors, Inc.
  245 F.2d 453· 7th Cir.· 1957-05-23 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the district court erred in finding it had federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to provide competent proof that the amount in controversy exceeded $3,000.
• Roth v. Davis
  231 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appeal lacked merit because the fictitious defendants, who were the basis for the diversity jurisdiction claim, were dismissed, rendering the appeal moot.
• Green v. Herschel S. Green and Madge Green
  218 F.2d 130· 7th Cir.· 1954-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction because a party, Madge Green, who was named as a defendant, should have been realigned as a plaintiff due to her interests in the trust, thus destroying complete diversity between the parties.
• Walton Hardin v. McAVOY
  216 F.2d 399· 5th Cir.· 1954-10-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's undisputed testimony and settled law established his domicile in Florida, thus conferring diversity jurisdiction.
• United States v. Lushbough
  200 F.2d 717· 8th Cir.· 1952-12-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Hoffman was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred, and therefore the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The judgment against Hoffman was also reversed.
• Mayflower Indus. v. Thor Corp.
  184 F.2d 537· 3d Cir.· 1950-08-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the claims against Thor and Teldisco were not 'separate and independent' for removal purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
• Parker v. Gordon
  178 F.2d 888· 1st Cir.· 1949-12-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a jury verdict for loss of consortium could be sustained even without proof of adultery, if the defendant's actions induced the wife to refuse sexual relations with her husband. The court also found no inconsistency in the jury's verdicts on the two counts.
• Peardon v. Chapman
  169 F.2d 909· 3d Cir.· 1948-09-02 ·cited 18×
  The dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for lack of prosecution was unwarranted and is reversed.
• Conn. Indem. Co. v. LEE
  168 F.2d 420· 1st Cir.· 1948-06-14 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the accident arose out of the unloading of the truck, thus falling within the coverage of the plaintiff's insurance policy.
• Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Kortz
  151 F.2d 582· 10th Cir.· 1945-10-30 ·cited 18×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the trial court should not have dismissed the declaratory judgment actions, but the decision to entertain them rests within the trial court's discretion.
• Young v. Garrett
  149 F.2d 223· 8th Cir.· 1945-05-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the grantors of one plaintiff and the administrators of certain estates were indispensable parties, and their inclusion would destroy diversity jurisdiction, thus affirming the dismissal of the cases.
• Petersen v. Chicago
  138 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1943-10-26 ·cited 18×
• Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Creek Cnty. v. Seber
  130 F.2d 663· 10th Cir.· 1942-08-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the taxes paid were void and that a permanent injunction against their collection was warranted.
• Laning v. Nat'l Ribbon & Carbon Paper MFG. Co.
  125 F.2d 565· 7th Cir.· 1942-02-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the primary issue was the determination of patent title based on state law, not a claim arising under federal patent laws.
• State v. The Honorable E. C. Love
  110 Fla. 91· Fla.· 1933-05-05 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by Neel Brothers to prevent a circuit court from proceeding in a negligence lawsuit, holding that the defendants' filing of a removal petition to federal court constituted a general appearance in state court that subje
• Devore v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
  658 F. Supp. 2d 1372· M.D. Fla.· 2009-09-28 ·cited 17×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a possibility of a valid claim against the non-diverse defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeded the federal threshold, thus denying remand.
• Carey v. Bahama Cruise Lines
  864 F.2d 201· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 17×
  The court held that maritime law, not Massachusetts comparative negligence law, governs the calculation of damages for a maritime tort, and that the district court erred in applying the Massachusetts rule which barred recovery when the plaintiff was more than 50% negligent.
• Scoggins v. Charles Eugene Pollock, M.D.
  727 F.2d 1025· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 17×
  A party's domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes is not changed by moving to another state solely for educational purposes if they lack the intent to remain there indefinitely.
• Congress OF Racial Equality v. Clemmons
  323 F.2d 54· 5th Cir.· 1963-09-12 ·cited 17×
  The concurring judge believes federal jurisdiction is lacking and state courts are the appropriate forum.
• Welsh v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y.
  186 F.2d 16· 5th Cir.· 1951-01-17 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a change of domicile to New Mexico, and thus diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
• Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Schantz
  178 F.2d 779· 5th Cir.· 1949-12-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory judgment action concerning insurance policy coverage, as an actual controversy exceeding $3,000 existed.
• Armstrong v. Alliance Tr. Co.
  126 F.2d 164· 5th Cir.· 1942-02-26 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a federal question must be essential to the plaintiff's cause of action and appear on the face of the complaint to support removal jurisdiction, and that ancillary jurisdiction fails if the basis for removal jurisdiction is absent.
• F. & H.R. Farman-Farmaian Consulting Eng'rs Firm & Farough Farman-Farmaian v. Harza Eng'g Co.
  882 F.2d 281· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 16×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The court held that the act of state doctrine bars the suit because the confiscation of the Iranian firm's assets, including its debt claim against Harza, was complete within Iran and did not involve U.S. territory or interests protected by the extraterritoriality exception.
• Int'l Shipping Co., S.A. v. Hydra Offshore, Inc.
  875 F.2d 388· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the attorney's jurisdictional theory was plausible and supported by authority, and therefore the Rule 11 sanction was too harsh.
• Allen v. Ferguson
  791 F.2d 611· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review an order dismissing one defendant prior to remand, and that the district court erred in dismissing the defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction before addressing subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors
  761 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the absence of a formal default judgment against defaulting parties did not divest the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act correctly mandates non-jury trials in suits against foreign states.
• Hargrave v. OKI Nursery, Inc.
  646 F.2d 716· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-19 ·cited 16×
  A federal district court, having acquired personal jurisdiction over a defendant for one claim under state long-arm statute, has the power to adjudicate all related claims arising from a common nucleus of operative fact, even if state law would limit state courts to only the clai
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Ins. Co. v. Leyron Alvin Greene
  606 F.2d 123· 6th Cir.· 1979-09-11 ·cited 16×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The 1964 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), which limits diversity jurisdiction in direct actions against insurers, does not apply to actions brought by a liability insurer.
• Thacker v. Whitehead
  548 F.2d 634· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that granting summary judgment before the 10-day period expired is not reversible error if the unsuccessful party demonstrates no prejudice. The court also questioned jurisdiction under the Civil Rights statutes.
• Patrician Towers Owners, Inc. v. Charles M. Fairchild (Individually and as general partner
  513 F.2d 216· 4th Cir.· 1975-03-26 ·cited 16×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The court held that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the plaintiffs' standing and the court's jurisdiction, requiring a remand.
• Jim L. Napper and wife v. Anderson
  500 F.2d 634· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-16 ·cited 16×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The court held that the plaintiffs were estopped by judgment from relitigating the issue of diversity jurisdiction, as it had been previously determined in the Arkansas federal court.
• Lamberg v. Robert J. Callahan under the Will of Ernest Wood
  455 F.2d 1213· 2d Cir.· 1972-02-17 ·cited 16×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the mutual wills executed by the Woods were intended to be irrevocable.
• Woodward v. D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc.
  428 F.2d 880· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-09 ·cited 16×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the defendants waived their objection to the removal of the case to federal court by not moving for remand and by participating in the litigation, and that their delay in asserting a counterclaim for professional malpractice barred them from doing so at this l
• Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek
  412 F.2d 1174· 9th Cir.· 1969-06-17 ·cited 16×·via Complete Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was lacking because complete diversity of citizenship did not exist between the plaintiff and all named defendants, and the claims were not separate and independent for removal purposes.
• Brough v. Strathmann Supply Co., Inc.
  358 F.2d 374· 3d Cir.· 1966-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the substitution of the plaintiff did not destroy diversity jurisdiction and that the amount in controversy and negligence issues should not have been decided as a matter of law.
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Emmett Horton
  275 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1960-02-22 ·cited 16×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the amount claimed before the Industrial Accident Board, and the employee's counterclaim, established the requisite amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, even if the Board's award was less.
• Garden Homes, Inc. v. Mason
  249 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1957-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and that federal jurisdiction was properly established.