Domestic Relations Exception

80 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.
• Lloyd v. Loeffler
  694 F.2d 489· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a tort suit for interference with child custody is not barred by the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction, and Wisconsin law recognizes such a tort.
• Hooks v. Hooks
  771 F.2d 935· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-23 ·cited 44×
• 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.
• Hernstadt v. Hernstadt
  373 F.2d 316· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-15 ·cited 39×
  Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over disputes concerning child custody and visitation rights, even when a full faith and credit claim is raised.
• Bennett v. Bennett
  682 F.2d 1039· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 35×
  The court held that federal courts can enforce state custody decrees and that a party should not be forced to waive injunctive relief to proceed in federal court.
• Buechold v. Ortiz
  401 F.2d 371· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-01 ·cited 35×
  Federal courts lack original jurisdiction over paternity and child support cases, even with diversity of citizenship and treaty provisions granting access, as these matters fall under domestic relations traditionally handled by state courts.
• 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.
• Hickey v. Duffy
  827 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that even if a federal statutory claim was ripe, the district court should have abstained from deciding it due to parallel state proceedings and important state interests.
• Malachowski v. City OF Keene
  787 F.2d 704· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing claims for injunctive relief related to pending state juvenile delinquency proceedings and that various appellees were immune from damages claims or failed to state a claim under § 1983.
• 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.
• Sylvander v. NEW England Home FOR Little Wanderers
  584 F.2d 1103· 1st Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the § 1983 claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and that federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to state child custody disputes.
• Magaziner v. Montemuro
  468 F.2d 782· 3d Cir.· 1972-09-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the federal court should abstain from hearing the case due to mootness and the need for state courts to resolve unsettled issues of state law, particularly concerning domestic relations.
• 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.
• Overman v. United States
  563 F.2d 1287· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while removal of a domestic relations case involving a federal officer is permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), the federal court's jurisdiction is limited to addressing the federal defense, and the remainder of the case should be remanded to state court.
• Albanese v. Richter
  161 F.2d 688· 3d Cir.· 1947-05-21 ·cited 24×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction over suits involving domestic relations, including those brought by illegitimate children against their putative fathers.
• Ruffalo v. Civiletti
  702 F.2d 710· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-17 ·cited 21×
  The court held that while the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest, immediate injunctive relief for the return of the child was not warranted due to remaining factual issues. However, the case is remanded for further proceedings to determine
• 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
• Chilton M. Wilkins v. Rogers
  581 F.2d 399· 4th Cir.· 1978-08-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the remand order for Suit 1 and affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims in Suit 2, finding no federal jurisdiction and proper abstention.
• 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.
• Rykers v. Alford
  832 F.2d 895· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that federal prosecutors are protected by absolute immunity, FBI agents by reliance on facially valid warrants, and Officer Fuqua by qualified immunity due to unclear law and facts; state law claims against the mother were properly dismissed under the domestic rela
• 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.
• Bossom v. Bossom
  551 F.2d 474· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that federal courts should decline jurisdiction in domestic relations cases that are "on the verge" of the matrimonial exception, especially when state courts are better equipped to handle them.
• 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.
• Weller v. Dep't OF Soc. Servs. FOR the City OF Baltimore
  901 F.2d 387· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while most of the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the complaint sufficiently alleged a procedural due process violation regarding the transfer of child custody without a hearing to warrant further factual inquiry.
• J.D. Franks and Margaret Franks v. Van Smith
  717 F.2d 183· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while federal courts lack jurisdiction over domestic relations disputes, a Fourth Amendment claim arising from a child custody situation can be heard if not frivolous.
• 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.
• Peterson v. Babbitt
  708 F.2d 465· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the § 1983 complaint based on abstention principles in domestic relations matters.
• McLaughlin v. Pernsley
  876 F.2d 308· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Catholic Social Services lacked standing to appeal the preliminary injunction, and that the Williamses, as intervenors, had standing to appeal only regarding the remedy. The court affirmed the district court's grant of a mandatory preliminary injunction orderi
• Hickey v. Baxter
  800 F.2d 430· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) allows federal courts to enforce one of two conflicting state custody orders, and the traditional domestic relations exception does not apply to such actions.
• Kelser v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Dep't OF Soc. Servs. & John Q. Isaacs & Ms. Charlotte Gammer
  679 F.2d 1092· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while abstention was proper, dismissal was not; the case should have been retained on the docket pending state court resolution.
• McDougald v. Jenson
  596 F. Supp. 680· N.D. Fla.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Florida custody modification order was valid under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) and entitled to enforcement, and that federal jurisdiction existed to make this declaration.
• Reyher v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of United States
  900 F. Supp. 428· M.D. Fla.· 1995-10-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, deferring to state court on domestic relations matters and applying the Economic Loss Doctrine.
• AGG v. Hon. Timothy M. Flanagan
  855 F.2d 336· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-25 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would remand the case to the district court for consideration of claim preclusion, and would not reach the merits of the appeal.
• 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.
• Diaz v. Diaz
  568 F.2d 1061· 4th Cir.· 1977-12-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction in cases involving domestic relations matters, even when federal statutes like 42 U.S.C. § 659 are implicated, and that such matters should be resolved in state courts.
• 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.
• Purnell v. City OF Akron
  925 F.2d 941· 6th Cir.· 1991-02-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the denial of the Campbells' motion to intervene as a matter of right was appealable and that they met the requirements for intervention.
• Evans v. Dale
  896 F.2d 975· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal securities claims are not barred by res judicata and should not be dismissed under Burford abstention, but state law claims are barred by res judicata.
• Rogers v. William Bradford Janzen, Ph.D.
  891 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-28 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's abstention from exercising jurisdiction over the case, finding it fell within the domestic relations exception.
• 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.
• Coats v. Woods
  819 F.2d 236· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The district court's decision to abstain from hearing child custody cases implicating domestic relations issues was not an abuse of discretion.