Diversity Suit

23 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Prejean v. Sonatrach, Inc.
  652 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-13 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the Texas Long Arm Statute requires a nexus between the cause of action and the defendant's contacts with Texas, and that the tort did not occur in Texas for statutory purposes. The court also affirmed that due process requires purposeful availment of the foru
• Koonce v. Quaker Safety Prods. & Mfg. Co.
  798 F.2d 700· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that under Texas law, a defendant seeking indemnity or contribution from a third-party joint tortfeasor is not barred by the statute of limitations, even if the plaintiff's direct claim against the third party is time-barred.
• Chavez v. Freshpict Foods, Inc.
  456 F.2d 890· 10th Cir.· 1972-03-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that federal regulatory statutes do not create an implied private right of action unless Congress expressly intends it or a compelling federal interest exists.
• Silkwood v. Kerr-McGEE Corp.
  769 F.2d 1451· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-31 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the punitive damages award was not preempted by federal law and was supported by evidence of Kerr-McGee's reckless disregard for public safety, and that the Workers' Compensation Act did not bar consideration of evidence of personal injury in assessing punitiv
• Manville v. Borg-Warner Corp.
  418 F.2d 434· 10th Cir.· 1969-11-14 ·cited 12×
  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.
• Cross v. M. C. Carlisle & Co., Inc.
  368 F.2d 947· 1st Cir.· 1966-11-21 ·cited 12×
  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.
• Perkinson v. Gilbert/Robinson, Inc.
  821 F.2d 686· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 10×
  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.
• Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Yarbrough
  360 F.2d 562· 8th Cir.· 1966-05-13 ·cited 10×
  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
• 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×
  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×
  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.
• Dennis v. Joubert
  736 F.2d 191· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 8×
  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.
• Batka v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  704 F.2d 684· 3d Cir.· 1983-04-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the insurer only needed to prove its fraud defense by a preponderance of the evidence, when New Jersey law requires clear and convincing evidence for rescission of an insurance policy.
• Fury Imports, Inc. v. Shakespeare Co.
  554 F.2d 1376· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the contract was renewed and that Shakespeare's actions were not justified, but a new trial is required on compensatory damages.
• Wheeler v. Dell Publ'g Co.
  300 F.2d 372· 7th Cir.· 1962-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that plaintiffs were not reasonably identifiable with fictional characters in the novel and film, and thus stated no cause of action for libel or invasion of privacy. Claims were also not barred by the statute of limitations.
• R.L. Clark Drilling Contractors, Inc. v. Schramm, Inc.
  835 F.2d 1306· 10th Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a party cannot raise a choice of law issue for the first time at the attorneys' fees stage if it was not included in the pretrial order and doing so would cause manifest injustice.
• Ara D. Blackwell v. Cities Serv. OIL Co.
  532 F.2d 1006· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a general verdict inconsistent with jury interrogatories cannot stand.
• Murray v. Wilson OAK Flooring Co., Inc.
  475 F.2d 129· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the warning on the adhesive can was insufficient to inform the plaintiff of the specific risk of explosion, making the question of contributory negligence a jury issue.
• Wyly v. Burlington Indus., Inc.
  452 F.2d 807· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred by not submitting the affirmative defense of volenti non fit injuria to the jury.
• Conner v. Oren W. Spencer
  304 F.2d 485· 9th Cir.· 1962-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the action was barred by Oregon's statute of limitations, as the borrowing statute applies the foreign statute of limitations and its tolling provisions, but the forum's statute of limitations provides an ultimate limit.
• Forum Ins. Co. v. Allied Sec., Inc.
  866 F.2d 80· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-24
  The dissenting judge would hold that the insurance policy's exclusions do not apply to the claim, and therefore the insurer should be liable.
• Kyriakopoulos v. George Wash. Univ.
  866 F.2d 438· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-13
  The court held that claims based on a prior decision are time-barred by the statute of limitations, and subsequent grievance proceedings do not toll this period unless they involve a new, distinct illegality.
• The Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Bryant
  774 F.2d 682· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-21
  The court held that the trial court correctly applied the parol evidence rule under Texas law to reverse the jury's verdict in favor of the defendants.
• Rogers v. Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc.
  463 F.2d 587· 7th Cir.· 1972-06-15
  The court held that the jury's verdict was proper and the trial court did not err in denying the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.