Diversity Of Citizenship

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

• Miller v. Grgurich
  763 F.2d 372· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 8×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  Diversity jurisdiction must exist at the time of removal, and the burden is on the removing party to establish it.
• George v. United Ky. Bank, Inc.
  753 F.2d 50· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a state court's judgment, which found no fraud by the bank, collaterally estopped the plaintiffs from pursuing a RICO claim based on fraud in the inducement, as the state court refused to allow amendment for that specific claim. The court also affirmed the dis
• Dennis v. Joubert
  736 F.2d 191· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 8×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the trial court was justified in finding the plaintiff responsible for the fires based on circumstantial evidence of financial motive and that the plaintiff's arguments regarding evidentiary rulings were without merit.
• Rosenfeld v. S.F.C. Corp.
  702 F.2d 282· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-21 ·cited 8×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that venue was improper in Massachusetts.
• Verone Marin Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber
  669 F.2d 990· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while support and attorney fees judgments are enforceable, the property division judgment is not because the California court exceeded its jurisdiction by improperly offsetting community property assets in a non-statutory equitable action.
• Bank OF Montreal v. Thorhallur G. Olafsson
  648 F.2d 1078· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a district court has discretion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) to set aside a default judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even after a year, when considering the equities.
• Kausch v. The First Wichita Nat'l Bank OF Wichita Falls
  470 F.2d 1068· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-28 ·cited 8×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction over will contests, even with diversity, unless state law allows an independent action to annul a will.
• Mrs. Veronica Fannaly Williams v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  468 F.2d 1207· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-09 ·cited 8×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The court held that the term "insured" in the diversity statute's amendment includes omnibus insureds, thus precluding diversity jurisdiction when the plaintiff and the omnibus insured share citizenship.
• Madge Schultz v. Wayland Schultz
  436 F.2d 635· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-12 ·cited 8×
  Service of process on an attorney with a broad power of attorney, but not specifically authorized to accept service, is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
• Fay Young and Forrest Young v. That WAS THE Week That WAS
  423 F.2d 265· 6th Cir.· 1970-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The right of privacy lapses upon the death of the person who enjoyed it, and descendants cannot recover for invasion of privacy after the person's death.
• Krentz v. Union Carbide Corp. & Worthington Corp.
  365 F.2d 113· 6th Cir.· 1966-08-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the decedent was a loaned employee of Union Carbide, making workmen's compensation the exclusive remedy, and that Worthington was not negligent in the design or warning regarding its compressor.
• United Nuclear Corp. v. Moki OIL & Rare Metals Co.
  364 F.2d 568· 10th Cir.· 1966-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that the principal place of business of United Nuclear Corporation was not in New Mexico, thus establishing diversity jurisdiction.
• Underwriters AT Lloyd's & Orion Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Nichols
  363 F.2d 357· 8th Cir.· 1966-06-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the interpleader action for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the insurers were exposed to potential multiple liability under Rule 22.
• Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. The First Nat'l Bank AT Winter Park
  351 F.2d 519· 5th Cir.· 1965-09-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was no actual controversy between the insurer and its insured bank, thus no diversity jurisdiction existed, and the case must be dismissed.
• Martens v. Lyman G. Winder
  341 F.2d 197· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, as service was not effected in accordance with applicable federal and state rules for non-resident defendants.
• In re Leeds Homes, Inc. v. Nat'l Acceptance Co. of Am.
  332 F.2d 648· 6th Cir.· 1964-06-09 ·cited 8×
  A contract entered into by a non-qualifying foreign corporation is not void under Tennessee law, and therefore a claim arising from such a contract is allowable in a federal bankruptcy proceeding.
• John M. Peters Constr. Co. v. Marmar Corp.
  329 F.2d 421· 6th Cir.· 1964-03-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to cure defective allegations of jurisdiction.
• Carroll W. Britton v. Green
  325 F.2d 377· 10th Cir.· 1963-11-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a receiver could be appointed for the mortgaged property under the second claim, as the mortgage expressly allowed it, and absent co-tenants were not indispensable parties to that specific relief. However, a receiver could not be appointed under the first clai
• Panama Transp. Co. v. Greenberg
  290 F.2d 125· 1st Cir.· 1961-05-05 ·cited 8×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiff attorney's own testimony established that the amount in controversy was less than the jurisdictional minimum, requiring dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction.
• Hirsch v. Hon. Walter Bruchhausen
  284 F.2d 783· 2d Cir.· 1960-11-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court improperly allowed an amendment to relate back to the original filing date, thereby validating service on the partners that would have been invalid in state court.
• Biggs v. Pub. Serv. Coordinated Transp.
  280 F.2d 311· 3d Cir.· 1960-07-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an ex parte opening of the record to admit a certificate of citizenship was harmless error when the facts were already admitted, and that the jury's findings on negligence and the judge's conduct were not grounds for reversal.
• Brown v. Keller
  274 F.2d 779· 6th Cir.· 1960-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that adding a policyholder as a party plaintiff cured any defect in the original plaintiffs' capacity to sue and did not destroy diversity jurisdiction.
• Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Arapahoe Drilling Co.
  267 F.2d 5· 10th Cir.· 1959-05-12 ·cited 8×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the vacated summary judgment on the counterclaim was not appealable as a final judgment because the counterclaim's relief was dependent on the main case's outcome, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Alberty v. W. Sur. Co.
  249 F.2d 537· 10th Cir.· 1957-11-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's two claims against the surety could be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction, and that alleged pleading defects were either cured by other allegations or were correctable by amendment.
• Pacific Freight Lines and Sidney S. Russell v. United States
  239 F.2d 191· 9th Cir.· 1956-12-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the driver's actions constituted a departure from the scope of his employment, and thus the United States was not liable for the collision. The court also noted a jurisdictional defect regarding the judgment against the individual driver.
• Cooper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  234 F.2d 170· 1st Cir.· 1956-05-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the rewritten Count V of the substitute complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action in deceit, and that Count VIII was similarly viable.
• Pasos v. PAN Am. Airways, Inc.
  229 F.2d 271· 2d Cir.· 1956-01-23 ·cited 8×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction over a suit for trespass on foreign land, even if a state statute allowed such an action, and that the merits of the case involved invalidating foreign government acts.
• Verda Ross Whalen v. Phoenix Indem. Co.
  220 F.2d 78· 5th Cir.· 1955-03-11 ·cited 8×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiff under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, reversing the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Nat'l Postal Transp. Ass'n v. Hudson
  216 F.2d 193· 8th Cir.· 1954-10-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the question of accidental death to the jury, but did err in awarding an attorney's fee under a Kansas statute that did not apply to fraternal benefit societies.
• Murarka v. Bachrack Bros., Inc.
  215 F.2d 547· 2d Cir.· 1954-08-03 ·cited 8×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the plaintiffs' loss of profits on resale constituted general damages recoverable under New York law when there was no available market for the goods, and the defendant's resale price could not be used to calculate damages. The court also affirmed the lower co
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mossey
  195 F.2d 56· 7th Cir.· 1952-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an insurer may bring a declaratory judgment action to void a policy procured by material misrepresentation, even if the loss has occurred, and that the denial of a jury trial was proper as the action was equitable.
• Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Terrell
  180 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1950-02-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony based on inadmissible hearsay was prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• Updike v. West
  172 F.2d 663· 10th Cir.· 1949-02-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to remand because the petition for removal sufficiently alleged fraudulent joinder of separable causes of action, justifying federal jurisdiction.
• Turner v. Alton Banking & Tr. Co.
  166 F.2d 305· 8th Cir.· 1948-02-27 ·cited 8×
  A defendant may assert a counterclaim against a foreign executor suing individually on a judgment, but the alleged misconduct in selling estate assets at a low price, if approved by the probate court, cannot be collaterally attacked in a separate action under Illinois law.
• Steele v. Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y.
  164 F.2d 387· 2d Cir.· 1947-12-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over claims not meeting the jurisdictional amount or diversity requirements.
• Miller v. City OF Greenville
  138 F.2d 712· 8th Cir.· 1943-11-04 ·cited 8×
  The federal court should not exercise jurisdiction over a dispute concerning state taxation of a bridge, as there is no substantial federal question and adequate state remedies exist.
• Thomson v. Butler
  136 F.2d 644· 8th Cir.· 1943-06-09 ·cited 8×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction over a suit to annul a state court's will judgment based on alleged fraud or lack of service, as these issues do not present a federal question or meet diversity requirements.
• People OF State OF Ill. v. Md. Cas. Co.
  132 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1942-12-09 ·cited 8×
  State officers are not liable for failing to furnish safe drinking water because their duty was public, not individual, and the third-party defendants' actions destroyed diversity jurisdiction.
• Bloomfield Vill. Drain Dist. v. Keefe
  119 F.2d 157· 6th Cir.· 1941-03-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while federal courts have jurisdiction, drain districts are not corporations for jurisdictional purposes, and that state court judgments declaring drain projects illegal are res judicata, preventing estoppel by bond recitals against the districts.
• AMT Title Servs. of Tex., LLC v. TAG Agro, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-04 ·cited 7×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to properly allege the citizenship of the parties, specifically the limited liability companies involved.
• Sunrise Mills (MLP) Ltd. P'ship v. Adams
  688 So. 2d 464· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-03-05 ·cited 7×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  In this personal injury case, the court granted certiorari to review a trial court's order sustaining plaintiff's objection to a request for admission regarding the amount of damages sought. The court held that defendant had a statutory right to discovery concerning the amount in
• Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
  941 F.2d 119· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 7×
  This is a dissenting opinion arguing that the judge of compensation claims should have affirmed the order in its entirety, particularly regarding the wage loss and deemed earnings, and should not have remanded the case for further findings.
• Pecherski v. Gen. Motors Corp. & Jane Doe
  636 F.2d 1156· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-13 ·cited 7×
  Removal was improper because the defendant failed to establish diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and all named defendants, including the unserved fictitious defendant.
• Irwin M. Brown v. Pyle
  310 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1962-11-16 ·cited 7×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A federal court has jurisdiction over a suit arising from an automobile collision in the forum state, but venue is controlled by federal statute, not state nonresident motorist statutes.
• Chicago v. Stude
  204 F.2d 954· 8th Cir.· 1953-06-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the filing of a complaint alleging diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy properly invoked the original jurisdiction of the federal district court, notwithstanding a prior, procedurally flawed attempt to appeal a state administrative
• Collier v. Harvey
  179 F.2d 664· 10th Cir.· 1949-12-28 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the federal court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy regarding insurance coverage, even though a state court action was pending.
• Laird v. United Shipyards, Inc.
  163 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1947-08-13 ·cited 7×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The New York statute of limitations bars the suit because the alleged cause of action accrued no later than February 28, 1929, and the statute had run before the suit was filed.
• Farr v. Detroit Tr. Co.
  116 F.2d 807· 6th Cir.· 1941-01-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the appellant's cross-claim for lack of jurisdiction because, when parties are aligned according to their real interests, there was no diversity of citizenship between the appellant and the defendants in his cross-claim.
• Nieter v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C.
  2018 WL 3761045· M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-20 ·cited 6×·via Complete Diversity Of Citizenship
  A proposal for settlement, standing alone, does not establish the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Bankston v. Ill. Nat'l Ins.
  443 F. Supp. 2d 1380· M.D. Fla.· 2006-05-30 ·cited 6×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the action was untimely because the defendant could have and should have ascertained the removability of the case within the thirty-day statutory period.