Erie Doctrine

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

• Janis v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc.
  370 F. Supp. 2d 1226· M.D. Fla.· 2005-06-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the engine manufacturer's conduct was the proximate cause of the decedents' deaths, thus denying the motion for summary judgment.
• Clark v. Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Bd.
  65 F. Supp. 2d 1308· M.D. Fla.· 1998-08-31 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts in diversity cases must enforce Florida's medical malpractice presuit screening requirements, and failure to comply before the statute of limitations runs warrants dismissal with prejudice.
• Eakin v. United Tech. Corp.
  998 F. Supp. 1422· S.D. Fla.· 1998-01-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an intervening workers' compensation insurer must share in the employee's attorney's fees when the employee obtains a settlement, even if unauthorized, because the insurer benefits from the recovery. The court also found that a settlement agreement was reached
• Parker W. Packard v. Provident Nat'l Bank
  994 F.2d 1039· 3d Cir.· 1993-05-18 ·cited 6×
  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it was evident to a legal certainty that the requisite amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction was never recoverable. The
• Fragoso v. Lopez
  991 F.2d 878· 1st Cir.· 1993-04-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that abstention under Erie or Burford was not warranted, and the appeal could proceed despite the insurer's insolvency. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
• Coplay Cement Co., Inc.
  983 F.2d 1435· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that under Indiana's personal-liability statute for subcontractors, the owner's liability is limited to the amount owed to the general contractor, and the owner can set off damages incurred from the contractor's breach on one contract against amounts owed on anothe
• Burns v. Int'l Ins. Co.
  929 F.2d 1422· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to claims-made insurance policies in California, and therefore, untimely notice by the insured precludes coverage.
• Coatings Mfrs., Inc. v. DPI, Inc.
  926 F.2d 474· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Mississippi law, as interpreted by analogy to similar statutes, does not permit suppliers of rental equipment to utilize the stop payment notice statute.
• Childers v. The Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co.
  881 F.2d 1259· 4th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 6×
  A federal court has discretion to dismiss meritless state-law claims during its preemption inquiry, and here, the plaintiff's state claims were plainly without merit, warranting summary judgment.
• Reed v. Shell Offshore Inc.
  872 F.2d 680· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Louisiana Civil Code Art. 2324, enacted after Olsen, requires apportionment of fault to third parties, including those performing work on the platform, in cases involving custodial liability under Art. 2317.
• Hercules Bumpers, Inc. v. First State Ins. Co. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
  863 F.2d 839· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that conflicting provisions in an insurance policy create an ambiguity that must be resolved in favor of coverage, as established by Georgia law.
• In re Merritt Dredging Co., Inc. v. Campbell-Appellee
  839 F.2d 203· 4th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the transaction is governed by Louisiana law, which would classify the agreement as a lease with an option to purchase, thus favoring Compliance Marine's claim.
• HON v. Stroh Brewery Co.
  835 F.2d 510· 3d Cir.· 1987-12-21 ·cited 6×
  A manufacturer may be strictly liable for failing to warn of latent dangers associated with its product, even if the product is an alcoholic beverage, if the consumer did not know or could not reasonably have known of the specific risk.
• Wilson v. United States Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.
  830 F.2d 588· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for liability arising from the sale of alcoholic beverages unambiguously applied to the sale of beer, and therefore the insurer was not obligated to cover the insured's liability.
• Tennimon v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
  823 F.2d 68· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's wrongful death claims were barred by the statute of limitations because limitations began to run at the date of death, not upon discovery of the cause, and tolling provisions for minors did not apply under Kentucky law.
• Angelotta v. Am. Broad. Corp.
  820 F.2d 806· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-17 ·cited 6×
  Ohio has not recognized a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy, and federal courts should not create such a cause of action in a diversity case.
• Losey v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp.
  792 F.2d 58· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions regarding duty to warn, proximate cause, damages, or the taxability of compensatory awards, and that Tennessee law, not federal law, governed the tax consequences of the award.
• Sonat Exploration Co. v. Mann
  785 F.2d 1232· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-14 ·cited 6×
  An Authorization for Expenditure (AFE), standing alone, does not create a binding obligation to pay drilling costs for an owner who has not signed or ratified the operating agreement.
• Burgess v. Colo. Serum Co., Inc.
  772 F.2d 844· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government contract defense applies to Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine claims, even if the state has not explicitly adopted the defense.
• Perry v. Boyd James O'Donnell
  749 F.2d 1346· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-21 ·cited 6×
  A purchaser under an installment land sale contract can be a bona fide purchaser for value, even if they have not yet obtained full legal title, under California law.
• Havoco OF Am., Ltd. v. Hilco, Inc.
  731 F.2d 1282· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a party does not necessarily waive its fraud claim by suing for breach of contract and accepting a settlement, especially when the contract was substantially performed and the settlement expressly reserved other claims.
• Burton A. Disner v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  726 F.2d 1106· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Michigan law requires fraud claims to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, not a mere preponderance, and the jury instruction to that effect was prejudicial error.
• Gen. Tel. Co. OF THE Se. v. J.B. Trimm
  706 F.2d 1117· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that under the lex loci contractus rule, the place of acceptance, not delivery, determines the place of contract formation for a construction contract. However, the court certified questions regarding Georgia's choice of law rules and the enforceability of indemnit
• Reyes-Cardona v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc.
  694 F.2d 894· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Puerto Rico law requires more than simple negligence to establish a claim for wrongful prosecution of a civil suit, and the defendant's actions in this case did not meet that higher standard.
• MY PIE Int'l, Inc. v. Debould, Inc.
  687 F.2d 919· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the franchisees were estopped from asserting a violation of the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act, and the exemption obtained was valid for the transaction.
• Rovegno v. Geppert Bros., Inc.
  677 F.2d 327· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the decedent's blood alcohol level because it was not accompanied by other evidence demonstrating unfitness to drive.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Riggs
  671 F.2d 810· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's technical error in substituting the subrogated insurer as the sole plaintiff was harmless and that federal procedural rules, not conflicting state law, govern joinder in diversity cases.
• Overstreet v. Norden Labs., Inc.
  669 F.2d 1286· 6th Cir.· 1982-02-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions on the measure of damages for breach of warranty, specifically regarding consequential damages and the requirement of proving causation.
• Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschaapij v. (K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines)
  610 F.2d 1052· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-04 ·cited 6×
  A commercial airline can recover damages for loss of use of a leased aircraft based on the actual rental payments made, without proving actual financial loss or the need for a substitute aircraft.
• In re Morris v. Morris
  602 F.2d 826· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-26 ·cited 6×
  A secured creditor is entitled to attorney fees provided in an installment sales contract after the debtor files for Chapter XIII bankruptcy, provided the fees are reasonable and valid under state law.
• Larsen v. Einar C. Erickson
  549 F.2d 1136· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-01 ·cited 6×
  Summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the formation of an oral agreement and its effect under Minnesota law.
• Abilene Sav. Ass'n v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co.
  461 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-29 ·cited 6×
  Failure to furnish proof of loss within the time specified by the bond contract, absent waiver or estoppel, precludes recovery on the bond.
• Clark Equip. Co. v. Armstrong Equip. Co.
  431 F.2d 54· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-01 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to enforce state-created substantive rights, even if a specific state remedy like detinue might not be available or adequate.
• Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. BOB LeROY'S Inc.
  413 F.2d 819· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-23 ·cited 6×
  A beneficiary can recover insurance proceeds if the insurer's determination of uninsurability, based on alleged misrepresentations, was not made in good faith and with a reasonable basis.
• Arrasmith v. The Pa. R.R. Co.
  410 F.2d 1311· 6th Cir.· 1969-05-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the question of whether a railroad car was a discernible object and whether the crossing presented peculiar hazards were questions of fact for the jury, not matters of law for the court.
• Elena Castilleja and minor children v. S. Pac. Co.
  406 F.2d 669· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that under Texas law, a passenger has a duty to keep a lookout only in exceptional circumstances. This omission was reversible error.
• Atkins v. Schmutz Mfg. Co.
  401 F.2d 731· 4th Cir.· 1968-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Virginia statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's action because the prior suit filed in Kentucky did not toll the Virginia statute under Virginia law.
• AETNA Life Ins. Co. v. Kegley
  389 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1967-08-15 ·cited 6×
• Wagner Tractor, Inc. v. W. E. Shields in Bankr. for Frost Mach. Co., Ltd.
  381 F.2d 441· 9th Cir.· 1967-07-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that damages for breach of warranty on the first machine were properly awarded, but recovery for the second machine was barred due to lack of timely notice of the breach.
• Graziano v. Pennell
  371 F.2d 761· 2d Cir.· 1967-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff could not use New York's CPLR § 205(a) to revive a time-barred claim in federal court when a prior timely action was still pending and dismissed for reasons other than those specified in the statute.
• Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc. v. Molitor
  365 F.2d 358· 9th Cir.· 1966-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Washington statute of limitations applies to the enforcement of a judgment registered in Washington, even if the judgment was obtained in Alaska and registered within Alaska's limitations period.
• MacLEAN v. Parkwood, Inc.
  354 F.2d 770· 1st Cir.· 1966-01-11 ·cited 6×
  A landowner's duty of care to invitees does not extend beyond the property over which they have possession and control, even if a hazard exists on adjacent public land.
• Kellerman v. Miller
  354 F.2d 46· 5th Cir.· 1965-12-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court properly interpreted the mineral lease regarding delay rental payments and the lessees' default.
• Peterson v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.
  349 F.2d 934· 9th Cir.· 1965-08-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the burden of proof and the definition of malice were proper given the evidence and the appellant's theory of the case. The court affirmed the judgment based on the jury's verdict.
• Doucet v. Middleton
  328 F.2d 97· 5th Cir.· 1964-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that actions for willful or wanton injury to person or property in Alabama are considered trespass and are governed by the six-year statute of limitations, not the one-year statute for general injuries.
• Round Rock Indep. Sch. Dist. v. The First Nat'l Ins. Co. OF Am.
  324 F.2d 280· 5th Cir.· 1963-11-01 ·cited 6×
• Kirkhof Mfg. Corp. v. Sem-Torq, Inc.
  312 F.2d 578· 6th Cir.· 1963-01-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the sales in question did not qualify for commissions under the contract, and that transformer sales were governed by a discount provision, not commissions.
• Hartness v. Aldens, Inc.
  301 F.2d 228· 7th Cir.· 1962-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Illinois conflict of laws rule, as interpreted by the District Court, does not offend the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
• City OF Orange v. Levingston Shipbuilding Co.
  258 F.2d 240· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-30 ·cited 6×
  A taxpayer challenging tax assessments must prove actual monetary damage resulting from alleged illegalities, not just theoretical disparities or omitted property without established value.
• Ennis M. Nichols v. Alker
  231 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1956-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a tort action for damages is not barred by a prior judgment if the alleged wrongful conduct causing that judgment was fraudulent and did not diminish the assets of the reorganized company or penalize other plan participants.