Diversity Of Citizenship

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

• Price v. Greenway
  167 F.2d 196· 3d Cir.· 1948-03-26 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a prior judge's ruling on diversity jurisdiction, made after hearing evidence, should be respected by a subsequent judge in the same case, even after a mistrial. The court also affirmed the jury's verdict and denied a motion for a new trial based on newly disc
• Grand Rapids Furniture Co. v. Grand Rapids Furniture Co.
  127 F.2d 245· 7th Cir.· 1942-04-10 ·cited 13×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement because they shared a common cause of action and an undivided interest, analogous to a class action.
• Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conf. OF United Methodist Church & Bishop Joseph A. Yeakel
  894 F.2d 1354· D.C. Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 12×
  The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause prohibits courts from adjudicating age discrimination claims against a church regarding ministerial appointments, but does not bar claims for breach of an oral employment contract, provided the claim can be proven without excessive entan
• Ramirez v. Inter-Continental Hotels
  890 F.2d 760· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-18 ·cited 12×
  State law claims seeking benefits from an ERISA plan are preempted by ERISA, and a state statute allowing a private right of action for improper insurance claims handling is not saved from preemption.
• Ne. Fed. Credit Union v. Neves
  837 F.2d 531· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-25 ·cited 12×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the state was the real party in interest, precluding diversity, and the proposed amendment to assert federal question jurisdiction was merely a defensive maneuver against a state law action.
• Congoleum Corp. v. DLW Aktiengesellschaft
  729 F.2d 1240· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant's limited sales and marketing activities in a forum, conducted through independent representatives and unrelated to the cause of action, are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
• Polyplastics, Inc. v. Transconex, Inc.
  713 F.2d 875· 1st Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 12×
  An order staying state court proceedings after removal is not an appealable interlocutory injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because removal automatically effects a stay and the order is merely declaratory of existing law.
• Aleksander Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.
  704 F.2d 1088· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 12×
  A stateless alien domiciled in a state cannot sue in federal court under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because United States citizenship is a prerequisite to being a citizen of a state for diversity purposes.
• Rosquist v. The SOO Line R.R.
  692 F.2d 1107· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-10 ·cited 12×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the attorneys' fees awarded, as it had the jurisdiction and justification to review the fee agreement, especially given the vulnerable parties involved.
• LEE v. Navarro Sav. Ass'n
  597 F.2d 421· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that for diversity jurisdiction purposes, the citizenship of a business trust is determined by the citizenship of its trustees, not its beneficiary shareholders, when the trustees have exclusive control and the right to sue.
• Prudential OIL Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  546 F.2d 469· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-01 ·cited 12×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  An assignment of a claim by a non-diverse parent corporation to its newly-created, wholly-owned diverse subsidiary, which has no business purpose other than prosecuting the claim, is improper and violates 28 U.S.C. § 1359, as it serves only to manufacture federal diversity jurisd
• Savarese v. Edrick Transfer & Storage, Inc.
  513 F.2d 140· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-10 ·cited 12×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the default judgment was properly entered because the defendant failed to timely answer, waived defenses by not raising them promptly, and did not demonstrate excusable neglect.
• Neidhart v. Neidhart S.A.
  510 F.2d 760· D.C. Cir.· 1975-01-10 ·cited 12×
  Section 293 of the Patent Codification Act is not available for service of process in disputes concerning patent license agreements, as these are considered contract disputes rather than proceedings affecting patent validity or infringement.
• Bassler v. Herschel S. Arrowood
  500 F.2d 138· 8th Cir.· 1974-07-08 ·cited 12×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that while federal jurisdiction might exist for fraud claims, abstention was appropriate due to the case's entanglement with state probate matters and the availability of state court remedies.
• Ohio Hoist Mfg. Co. v. LiROCCHI
  490 F.2d 105· 6th Cir.· 1974-01-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court has discretion to exercise pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim for abuse of process, but that the appellant should be allowed to amend its complaint to establish diversity jurisdiction by striking a non-diverse party.
• Ballard Fish & Oyster Co., Inc. v. Glaser Constr. Co., Inc.
  424 F.2d 473· 4th Cir.· 1970-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a claim alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's just compensation clause, arising from a public service corporation's unauthorized taking of private property for a pipeline, presents a federal question sufficient for federal court jurisdiction.
• Manville v. Borg-Warner Corp.
  418 F.2d 434· 10th Cir.· 1969-11-14 ·cited 12×·via Diversity Suit
  Under Kansas law, a plaintiff in an invasion of privacy suit cannot recover substantial damages without presenting some evidence of general damages, even if special damages are not proven.
• Gray v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal.
  387 F.2d 935· 3d Cir.· 1968-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish the jurisdictional amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction, as the accrued payments and frivolous punitive damages claim did not meet the threshold.
• Cross v. M. C. Carlisle & Co., Inc.
  368 F.2d 947· 1st Cir.· 1966-11-21 ·cited 12×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the defendant's negligence in designing and installing the damper was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, but not for the alleged defect in the tail pipe due to the employer's knowledge.
• Walden v. Broce Constr. Co.
  357 F.2d 242· 10th Cir.· 1966-03-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of no diversity of citizenship was not clearly erroneous, and therefore the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper.
• Mason v. Am. Express Co. & Howard L. Clark
  334 F.2d 392· 2d Cir.· 1964-07-02 ·cited 12×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  An unincorporated joint stock association organized under New York law is considered a citizen of New York for the purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Russell v. Cunningham
  279 F.2d 797· 9th Cir.· 1960-06-06 ·cited 12×
  The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is an appealable order, and the District Court abused its discretion in denying the motion given the unusual circumstances and erroneous beliefs that led to the dismissal. The dismissal of a duplicative federal action was affirmed.
• Dryden v. Dryden
  265 F.2d 870· 8th Cir.· 1959-04-14 ·cited 12×
• England v. La. State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs
  259 F.2d 626· 5th Cir.· 1958-09-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Louisiana Medical Practice Act is constitutional and that the Board of Medical Examiners did not act arbitrarily in refusing to accept chiropractic diplomas for medical licensure.
• Abel v. Brayton Flying Serv., Inc.
  248 F.2d 713· 5th Cir.· 1957-10-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its judgment, as the contract was not usurious and the individual Brayton was not an indispensable party. The appellee's cross-assignment of error was also dismissed.
• Augusta Hill and Mamie Hill v. Gregory
  241 F.2d 612· 7th Cir.· 1957-02-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the defendant did not reside in the judicial district where the suit was filed, as required by statute.
• Reynolds v. Maples
  214 F.2d 395· 5th Cir.· 1954-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the optionees' conditional tender of a draft, without actual deposit of funds, did not constitute valid exercise of the option, and thus no contract for sale was formed.
• Foster v. Carlin
  200 F.2d 943· 4th Cir.· 1952-12-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction, as the incompetent plaintiff was domiciled in California, and that the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute concerning the settlement agreement and st
• Gavin v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co.
  185 F.2d 104· 3d Cir.· 1950-11-13 ·cited 12×
  A plaintiff may sue a corporation in federal court in a state where it is incorporated, even if it is also incorporated in another state, and the fact of dual incorporation does not defeat diversity jurisdiction.
• Bankers Indem. Ins. Co. v. Green
  181 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1950-04-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the insurer could not escape liability under the policy's exclusionary clause because the insured did not consent to the pilot's specific violation of aviation regulations.
• Wasserman v. Perugini
  173 F.2d 305· 2d Cir.· 1949-03-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence by the mail truck driver and that there was no federal jurisdiction over claims against the individual defendants due to lack of diversity.
• United States ex rel. Sutton v. Mulcahy
  169 F.2d 94· 2d Cir.· 1948-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court affirms the lower court's decision, finding that the relator had opportunities to appeal jurisdictional issues and address inability to pay the fine.
• Knott Corp. v. Furman
  163 F.2d 199· 4th Cir.· 1947-06-16 ·cited 12×
  The judgment below should be reversed and the action dismissed for improper venue.
• Derman v. Stor-Aid, Inc.
  141 F.2d 580· 2d Cir.· 1944-03-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the patent claims were invalid for lack of invention due to anticipation by prior art, and that the unfair competition counterclaim lacked federal jurisdiction.
• Curtis v. O'Leary
  131 F.2d 240· 8th Cir.· 1942-11-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the reorganization plan clearly called for a sale of stock, and the appellants were bound by the court's final decrees approving the plan and its execution, precluding claims based on alleged oral agreements or fraud not disclosed at the time.
• SUN OIL Co. v. Burford
  130 F.2d 10· 5th Cir.· 1942-07-11 ·cited 12×
• Barnett v. Mayes
  43 F.2d 521· 10th Cir.· 1930-08-06 ·cited 12×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the entire 120-acre claim. This was based on the principle that once a federal court acquires jurisdiction over a portion of an indivisible cause of action involving
• Kingston Square Tenants Ass'n v. Tuskegee Gardens, Ltd.
  792 F. Supp. 1566· S.D. Fla.· 1992-05-26 ·cited 11×
  The court held that tenants cannot bring an implied cause of action under federal housing statutes for monetary damages and that tort claims for economic losses arising from a contract breach are barred by the economic loss rule.
• Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp.
  913 F.2d 108· 3d Cir.· 1990-09-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to remand because it improperly considered the merits of the release defense, which was common to both diverse and non-diverse defendants, in determining fraudulent joinder.
• Broyles v. Bayless
  878 F.2d 1400· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 11×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The court held that an uninsured motorist carrier's citizenship should not be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes when it has not exercised substantial control over the litigation and its liability is contingent and indirect.
• Goins v. Goins
  777 F.2d 1059· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-10 ·cited 11×
  The federal court properly abstained from exercising diversity jurisdiction over a case involving child custody disputes and related tort claims, as it falls within the domestic relations exception.
• Chick KAM Choo v. Exxon Corp.
  764 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-08 ·cited 11×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) cannot be invoked in a suit between an individual alien plaintiff and an alien corporation with its principal place of business in a U.S. state.
• Glenny v. Am. Metal Climax, Inc.
  494 F.2d 651· 10th Cir.· 1974-03-19 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the smelter's owner and operator, Blackwell Zinc, was an indispensable party under Rule 19(b), and thus the district court did not err in dismissing the action for want of an indispensable party.
• Siegerist v. Blaw-Knox Co.
  414 F.2d 375· 8th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 11×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court affirmed the injunction against trademark infringement and unfair competition but modified the order regarding the destruction of certain documents. The court also affirmed the denial of an accounting.
• Cepeda v. Cowles Magazines & Broad., Inc.
  392 F.2d 417· 9th Cir.· 1968-04-02 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the judgment entered on the jury's verdict, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof required for a libel claim by a public figure.
• Calhoun v. Kentucky-W. Va. GAS Co.
  166 F.2d 530· 6th Cir.· 1948-03-15 ·cited 11×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for damages, including personal suffering and inconvenience, were substantial enough to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and the lower court erred in dismissing the case.
• Fowler v. Cal. Toll-Bridge Auth.
  128 F.2d 549· 9th Cir.· 1942-06-03 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the California Toll Bridge Authority is merely an agency of the State of California, and therefore a suit against it based on diversity of citizenship must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc. v. Fitch
  966 F.2d 981· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not create independent federal question jurisdiction, and a petition to compel arbitration must independently establish federal jurisdiction based on the petition's face, not the underlying dispute.
• Siegel v. Alpha Wire Corp.
  894 F.2d 50· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a jury could reasonably infer that the employer's proffered reasons for termination were pretextual, thus reversing the grant of summary judgment.
• Barclay Square Props. v. Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Minneapolis
  893 F.2d 968· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it could not reach the merits of the appeal because the diversity of citizenship jurisdiction was not properly pleaded and is not evident from the record.