Domestic Relations Exception To Diversity Jurisdiction

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

• Crouch v. Parsons Thomas Crouch
  566 F.2d 486· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-17 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction did not apply to a suit for breach of a separation agreement, and the trial court properly calculated damages for future monthly payments by awarding their present value.
• Solomon v. Solomon
  516 F.2d 1018· 3d Cir.· 1975-05-02 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the assertion of a defense based on a severable visitation clause in a contract does not divest federal courts of diversity jurisdiction in a contract action, and the "domestic relations exception" does not bar such suits.
• Armstrong v. Armstrong
  508 F.2d 348· 1st Cir.· 1974-12-27 ·cited 34×
  Federal courts should abstain from hearing cases related to divorce and alimony, even if they involve contract or property disputes, due to comity and sound federal policy.
• Csibi v. Gizela Fustos
  670 F.2d 134· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction applies, divesting federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over disputes concerning marital status.
• McIntyre v. Thairyl A. McINTYRE
  771 F.2d 1316· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-18 ·cited 32×
  A federal court has jurisdiction over a tort action between former spouses alleging interference with visitation rights, as it does not fall under the domestic relations exception or warrant abstention.
• Cole v. Cole
  633 F.2d 1083· 4th Cir.· 1980-10-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction does not bar claims for torts like malicious prosecution or arson, even if arising from a marital dispute, and that summary judgment was improperly granted where genuine issues of material fact existed
• Flood v. Braaten
  727 F.2d 303· 3d Cir.· 1984-01-31 ·cited 31×
  Federal courts may exercise jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) when a state court fails to adhere to its provisions.
• Lynk v. LaPORTE Superior Court NO. 2
  789 F.2d 554· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The district court erred in dismissing the federal civil rights suit under the Younger doctrine because there were no pending state court proceedings in which the plaintiff could vindicate his rights.
• Jagiella v. Waclav James Constantine Jagiella
  647 F.2d 561· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper for enforcing a foreign divorce decree's arrearages and that the district court did not err in refusing to exercise jurisdiction over the appellant's counterclaim for modification and damages related to domestic issues.
• Corrinne Sutter v. Pitts
  639 F.2d 842· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-11 ·cited 24×
  The federal court properly abstained from hearing a civil rights claim that was essentially a dispute over child custody, as such matters fall under the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction.
• Erspan v. Badgett
  647 F.2d 550· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-10 ·cited 21×
  A divorce decree's award of military retirement benefits, even if labeled as property division under state law, can be considered nondischargeable alimony, maintenance, or support under federal bankruptcy law if it serves that substance. A district court can enjoin a party from r
• Thompson v. Thompson
  798 F.2d 1547· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 19×
  Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) to determine which of two conflicting state child custody decrees is valid and enforceable.
• DiRUGGIERO v. Rodgers
  743 F.2d 1009· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 19×
  The court held that claims under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) arise under federal law, and that the domestic relations exception does not bar diversity jurisdiction over a state-law child abduction tort claim.
• Wasserman v. Irwin Wasserman
  671 F.2d 832· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the suit under the domestic relations exception, as the claims asserted were common law torts not dependent on family status.
• Fern v. Turman
  736 F.2d 1367· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that federal courts should decline jurisdiction over these cases, either due to the domestic relations exception or because the claims are not ripe for adjudication.
• Kirby v. Mellenger
  830 F.2d 176· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the case based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction.
• Firestone v. The Cleveland Tr. Co. & Russell A. Firestone, Jr.
  654 F.2d 1212· 6th Cir.· 1981-07-30 ·cited 12×
  Federal courts will generally abstain from exercising jurisdiction over domestic relations matters, even when diversity jurisdiction exists, especially when the core issues involve ongoing state court litigation concerning divorce decrees and support obligations.
• Raftery v. Katheryn Girvin Scott
  756 F.2d 335· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-07 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision, adhering to established circuit precedent regarding the domestic relations exception.
• Canevero v. Rexach
  793 F.2d 417· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the suit as a domestic relations dispute, which is outside the scope of federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Helen T. Steel (Muff) v. United States & Dean E. Steel
  813 F.2d 1545· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Dean Steel had sufficient minimum contacts with California to establish personal jurisdiction for the declaratory judgment action, but that the United States is immune from suit under FUSFSPA.
• Drewes v. Ilnicki
  863 F.2d 469· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the domestic relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction did not apply to claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and interference with employment, nor to the enforcement of a state judgment for support arrearages.
• Wesolek v. Wesolek
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-22
  The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff has stated plausible claims for fraudulent transfer under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
• John P. Lannan for the Estate of Ashley JoAnne Brewer v. Maul
  979 F.2d 627· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-09
  The court held that the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction does not apply to a third-party beneficiary contract claim, and abstention was inappropriate as the claim was not substantially related to pending state proceedings.
• Vaughan v. Smithson
  883 F.2d 63· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-21
  The court held that a breach of contract claim for child support, even if framed as a contract, falls within the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction.