Diversity Of Citizenship

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

• Albrecht v. Lund
  845 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the pleadings did not raise a substantial question of diversity of citizenship, and amendment of the complaint would be futile, thus affirming the dismissal.
• Perkinson v. Gilbert/Robinson, Inc.
  821 F.2d 686· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 10×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions for discovery abuse, but erred in its jury instructions regarding negligence per se and contributory negligence.
• Matchett v. Wold
  818 F.2d 574· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 10×·via Complete Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the district court's dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction was premature because it could not determine from the record whether the joinder of additional defendants destroyed diversity.
• Wilsey v. Charles F. Eddingfield, M.D.
  780 F.2d 614· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-09 ·cited 10×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The citizenship of beneficiaries, not a nominal representative, determines diversity jurisdiction when the representative has no independent stake in the outcome under state law.
• Beach v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
  728 F.2d 407· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 10×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that while the federal district court had jurisdiction, the plaintiff failed to state a claim because Indiana law vests exclusive jurisdiction over employee injury claims with the Industrial Disputes Board, thereby eliminating other causes of action.
• Bryan v. Merrill Lynch
  565 F.2d 276· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-09 ·cited 10×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant's alleged negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's losses, as there was no evidence the plaintiff would have sold his stock had he received the information he sought.
• Bialac v. Harsh Bldg. Co.
  463 F.2d 1185· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was lacking because a defendant corporation's principal place of business was in the same state as plaintiffs, despite a stipulation to the contrary.
• London v. Standard OIL Co. OF Cal., Inc.
  417 F.2d 820· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-04 ·cited 10×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the defendant corporation's allegation of citizenship for removal purposes was a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation, and thus insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.
• Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Yarbrough
  360 F.2d 562· 8th Cir.· 1966-05-13 ·cited 10×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to provide timely proof of disability under Group Policy No. G-1110-R, as required by clear and unambiguous notice provisions, barred his claim for benefits based on the higher life insurance amount. The court also held that the defenda
• Solo CUP Co. v. Paper Mach. Corp.
  359 F.2d 754· 7th Cir.· 1966-04-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant Baumgartner and reversed the judgment against him, but affirmed the district court's finding of unfair competition against the other defendants.
• Maude E. Schlemmer v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. & Cnty. of Los Angeles
  349 F.2d 682· 9th Cir.· 1965-08-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Department of Charities, as a creditor beneficiary, had a superior right to the insurance proceeds over the substituted beneficiary, even though the insured changed beneficiaries without consent.
• Mary A. Schwartz under the Last Will and Testament of Samuel H. Schwartz v. S.S. Nassau
  345 F.2d 465· 2d Cir.· 1965-05-07 ·cited 10×·via Diversity Suit
  A contract clause requiring suit commencement and process service within one year is valid under 46 U.S.C. § 183b, even if admiralty rules differ on commencement.
• Faye R. Beaver v. Fid. Life Ass'n
  313 F.2d 111· 10th Cir.· 1963-01-09 ·cited 10×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that under Kansas law, the beneficiary bears the burden of proving accidental death in a suit for double indemnity under a policy that insures against death by accidental means and excludes death by self-destruction.
• Appelt v. Whitty
  286 F.2d 135· 7th Cir.· 1961-01-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the minor plaintiff's domicile, not his guardian's, determined diversity jurisdiction, and the minor had established domicile in Illinois.
• McPHAIL v. The L. S. Starrett Co.
  257 F.2d 388· 1st Cir.· 1958-07-18 ·cited 10×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  An employee stock option plan is not illegal for allowing installment payments with dividends credited, nor for granting options without direct consideration, as long as it's approved by stockholders and serves a legitimate corporate purpose like employee retention.
• Swanson v. Traer
  230 F.2d 228· 7th Cir.· 1956-02-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Railway Company, despite being named a defendant, must be realigned as a plaintiff due to its true interests in the derivative action, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction.
• Swan v. The First Church OF Christ
  225 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1955-08-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Massachusetts religious entities were corporations for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint counts.
• Benbow v. Wolf
  217 F.2d 203· 9th Cir.· 1954-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a claim against a government employee is not ancillary to a claim against the United States under the Tort Claims Act without independent grounds for jurisdiction, such as diversity of citizenship.
• In re Escheat of Monies Deposited in United States Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Pa.
  187 F.2d 131· 3d Cir.· 1951-01-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the United States District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the bribe money, and the Pennsylvania state court lacked jurisdiction to hear a suit against the sovereign without consent.
• Delaney v. Carter OIL Co.
  174 F.2d 314· 10th Cir.· 1949-04-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appealing parties could not complain about the dismissal of another party's action, and their own counterclaims failed to state a cause of action.
• Central States Co-Ops. v. Watson Bros. Transp. Co.
  165 F.2d 392· 7th Cir.· 1947-12-12 ·cited 10×
  The 1940 amendment to the Judicial Code, which expanded diversity jurisdiction to include controversies between citizens of a state and citizens of the District of Columbia, is unconstitutional as it exceeds Congress's power under Article III of the Constitution.
• German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp.
  156 F.2d 977· 3d Cir.· 1946-08-19 ·cited 10×
  A trial court's order compelling a plaintiff to elect between claims of negligence under the Jones Act and breach of warranty of seaworthiness is prejudicial error.
• Briggs v. Pa. R. Co.
  153 F.2d 841· 2d Cir.· 1946-01-07 ·cited 10×
  A domiciliary administrator may sue under the Federal Employers' Liability Act in a state other than the state of domicil, even without ancillary letters.
• Townsend v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.
  144 F.2d 106· 10th Cir.· 1944-07-14 ·cited 10×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the appellant's established residence in Oklahoma for venue purposes was not negated by a potential future intention to return to Arkansas.
• Broadwater-Missouri Water Users' Ass'n v. Mont. Power Co.
  139 F.2d 998· 9th Cir.· 1944-01-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the State Water Conservation Board is an alter ego of the state, and therefore, a suit against it based solely on diversity jurisdiction is a suit against the state and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• W. Union Tel. Co. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers
  133 F.2d 955· 7th Cir.· 1943-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court has jurisdiction to modify a previously issued injunction when subsequent changes in law render the enjoined conduct legal, even if the original decree was final for appeal purposes.
• Williams v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis.
  131 F.2d 601· 5th Cir.· 1942-11-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insured's cooperation with the insurance company presented a question of fact for the jury, and the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the insurer.
• Teague v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen
  127 F.2d 53· 6th Cir.· 1942-04-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint did not state a cause of action arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and thus federal jurisdiction was lacking.
• Benitez v. Bank of Nova Scotia
  125 F.2d 519· 1st Cir.· 1942-01-30 ·cited 10×
  The court vacated the deficiency judgment against the appellant, pending a determination of her status as a farmer-debtor under the Bankruptcy Act.
• J.C. Penney Corp., Inc. v. Oxford Mall, LLC
  100 F.4th 1340· 11th Cir.· 2024-05-01 ·cited 9×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's sanctions award and decision to strike Oxford Mall's affidavit, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Sweeney v. Westvaco Co.
  926 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-12 ·cited 9×·via Complete Diversity Of Citizenship
  The court held that the defendant waived its federal labor law pre-emption defense by raising it too late, and that the diversity jurisdiction issue could be resolved by dismissing a nondiverse defendant.
• Kahal v. J. W. Wilson & Assocs., Inc.
  673 F.2d 547· D.C. Cir.· 1982-03-23 ·cited 9×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A claim for punitive damages must have a colorable basis in law and fact to satisfy the federal jurisdictional amount requirement when it is the sole basis for jurisdiction.
• Franklin Supply Co. v. Tolman
  454 F.2d 1059· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-16 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the accounting firm's failure to formally disclose an employee's dual relationships and its interpretation of inventory valuation terms did not constitute legal fraud, but could constitute constructive fraud or negligence.
• Joseph Muller Corp. Zurich v. Societe Anonyme de Gerance et D'Armement
  451 F.2d 727· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-11 ·cited 9×
  The court held that while a Franco-Swiss treaty does not bar suits between nationals of those countries in U.S. courts under Rule 17(b), comity requires dismissal of a contract claim lacking federal jurisdiction, but not an antitrust claim due to overriding U.S. public policy.
• Cent. OF Ga. Ry. Co. v. Riegel Textile Corp.
  426 F.2d 935· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-13 ·cited 9×
  A third-party defendant can remove a severed claim to federal court if diversity jurisdiction exists, as they are considered a 'defendant' under the removal statute after severance.
• Hardy Lee Jamison, Jr. v. Memphis Transit Mgmt. Co.
  381 F.2d 670· 6th Cir.· 1967-08-02 ·cited 9×
  The mother of a deceased child is an indispensable party to a wrongful death action under Tennessee law, and her citizenship must be considered for diversity jurisdiction.
• Kirby Lumber Corp. v. State OF La.
  293 F.2d 82· 5th Cir.· 1961-07-13 ·cited 9×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The Fifth Circuit held that the Anacoco-Prairie State Game and Fish Commission, having the power to sue and be sued under state law, is a distinct entity subject to federal diversity jurisdiction, and thus the district court correctly denied the motion to remand.
• Ellis v. Se. Constr. Co., Inc.
  260 F.2d 280· 8th Cir.· 1958-10-21 ·cited 9×
  A member of the armed forces can acquire a new domicile of choice if physical presence and intent to make a place their home concur, even if stationed there due to military orders.
• Smith v. Sperling
  237 F.2d 317· 9th Cir.· 1956-05-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial court properly realigned the corporation as a plaintiff, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction for the first cause of action. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the second cause of action, finding the trial court should have first assessed
• Birmingham Post Co. v. Brown
  217 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1954-11-24 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the defendant bore the burden of proving the plaintiff was not a citizen of Texas, as the plaintiff always bears the burden of proving jurisdiction.
• Whelan v. Placid OIL Co.
  198 F.2d 39· 5th Cir.· 1952-07-24 ·cited 9×
  The court held that parties with interests in a unitized oil and gas lease are indispensable parties to a suit concerning title to that leasehold estate.
• Ridder Bros., Inc. v. Blethen
  142 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1944-04-29 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the value of the matter in controversy for federal jurisdiction is measured from the plaintiff's viewpoint, not the defendant's potential loss.
• Allapattah Servs. v. Exxon Corp.
  362 F.3d 739· 11th Cir.· 2004-03-15 ·cited 8×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The dissenting opinion argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not grant federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over unnamed class members in diversity-based class actions who fail to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The dissent contends that the Suprem
• Lewis v. Windsor Door Co.
  926 F.2d 729· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a third-party action against the federal government under the FTCA cannot provide federal subject-matter jurisdiction for the main claim when no independent jurisdiction exists, and that the United States lacked authority to remove the case.
• Weltman v. Ozzie Silna
  879 F.2d 425· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the amended Delaware partnership law retroactively to determine the validity of the partnership amendment. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
• Bess Caroline Molett v. Penrod Drilling Co.
  872 F.2d 1221· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-19 ·cited 8×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The majority held that allegations of negligence against a jack-up barge in navigable waters lacked a sufficient maritime nexus to invoke admiralty jurisdiction.
• Wilfredo Rodriguez-Diaz v. Marcelo Sierra-Martinez
  853 F.2d 1027· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 8×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The majority's decision to apply New York law to determine the plaintiff's domicile, despite his minority status under Puerto Rican law, is criticized.
• Morongo Band OF Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. OF Equalization
  858 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The district court improperly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over the Indian tribe's interpleader action because the claims did not arise under federal law.
• Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alejandro Alfonzo-Larrain R.
  832 F.2d 417· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-28 ·cited 8×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The court held that the obligation to pay royalties for continued use of intellectual property survives termination of the license agreement under Illinois law, and that a 'stateless' party's presence can destroy diversity jurisdiction unless dismissed.
• Jaser v. NEW York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n & Adriano Fernandes
  815 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint to drop nondiverse parties, as those parties were not indispensable. However, the dismissal for lack of diversity was proper.