Erie Doctrine

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

• Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Winchester Drive-In Theatre, Inc.
  351 F.2d 925· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-22 ·cited 21×
  Federal law governs the effect of a general release in an antitrust case, and under the modern rule, a release of one joint tortfeasor releases all others unless rights against them are expressly reserved.
• Hoskins Coal & Dock Corp. v. Truax Traer Coal Co.
  191 F.2d 912· 7th Cir.· 1951-10-17 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the plaintiff's treble damages claim under the Clayton Act was barred by the Illinois two-year statute of limitations for statutory penalties.
• Salinero v. Johnson & Johnson
  995 F.3d 959· 11th Cir.· 2021-04-29 ·cited 20×
  The learned intermediary doctrine applies in Florida to failure-to-warn claims involving prescription medical devices, and a physician's financial relationship with the manufacturer does not create an exception to this doctrine.
• Adams-Arapahoe Sch. Dist. NO. 28-J v. GAF Corp.
  959 F.2d 868· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the School District failed to present sufficient evidence of physical injury (contamination) to justify sending its negligence claim to the jury, and therefore a directed verdict for GAF was warranted.
• Brown v. Detective Felix Grabowski
  922 F.2d 1097· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of qualified immunity on state law claims unless the state law itself provides immunity from suit, and that the victim's civil court access and equal protection claims were not constitutionally cognizable or
• Tanker Mgmt., Inc. v. Bruce C. Brunson, M.D.
  918 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a directed verdict, awarding costs and attorney's fees, or correcting the judgment, and that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 does not preempt Florida Statute § 45.061.
• Porter v. Nutter
  913 F.2d 37· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-11 ·cited 20×
  A supervisor is not liable to an injured co-employee for negligence if the conduct falls within the scope of the employer's nondelegable duty to maintain a safe workplace.
• Adams-Arapahoe Joint Sch. Dist. NO. 28-J v. The Cont'l Ins. Co.
  891 F.2d 772· 10th Cir.· 1989-12-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that defective design/construction is a covered risk under an all-risk policy, and the corrosion exclusion does not apply if the corrosion results from a covered risk. However, the jury instruction on the burden of proof for fortuitousness was erroneous and prejudi
• SUN World Lines, Ltd. v. March Shipping Corp. & March Shipping Passenger Servs.
  801 F.2d 1066· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a forum selection clause in a ship charter contract is enforceable under federal law, even if it conflicts with state public policy, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the clause.
• Menatsagan Melikian and Kambiz Aftassi v. Corradetti
  791 F.2d 274· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the fraud, conspiracy, and veil-piercing claims, as the plaintiffs had stated valid claims upon which relief could be granted.
• Birmingham Fire Ins. Co. OF Pa. v. Winegardner & Hammons, Inc.
  714 F.2d 548· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 20×
  A federal court cannot exercise ancillary jurisdiction to join a party against whom there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction, even if the claim arises from the same set of facts as a claim over which the court has jurisdiction.
• Ringrose v. Engelberg Huller Co., Inc.
  692 F.2d 403· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the case must be remanded to determine if the amended complaint naming successor corporations relates back to the original filing date under Rule 15(c).
• Chiarello v. Domenico BUS Serv., Inc.
  542 F.2d 883· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-14 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the trial court's decision to set aside jury verdicts as against the weight of the evidence and upheld the discounting of future damages.
• In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  535 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 20×
• Chilton Thorington and Harmon Wages v. Cash
  494 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that sending material misrepresentations into Georgia, upon which the plaintiff relied, constituted a "tortious act within" the state under the Georgia long-arm statute, satisfying due process requirements for personal jurisdiction.
• Beck v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.
  429 F.2d 813· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the insured was covered under the policy as a resident of the household, but the insurer was not liable for excess judgment because its denial of coverage was made in good faith based on the information available. The insured is entitled to recover attorney's
• Dorin v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States
  382 F.2d 73· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a plaintiff who accepts a remittitur waives their right to appeal the judgment, and that the federal rule on remittitur applies in diversity cases over state rules.
• Green v. AETNA Ins. Co.
  349 F.2d 919· 5th Cir.· 1965-06-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the insurer's duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the complaint, liberally construed, and is distinct from the duty to pay a judgment, which depends on adjudicated facts.
• Zimmerman v. Mathews Trucking Corp.
  203 F.2d 864· 8th Cir.· 1953-04-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a federal court's judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict must align with state court decisions on similar facts and law, especially when applying state law.
• Cates v. Sears
  928 F.2d 679· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in applying comparative fault principles to a products liability claim and in denying a directed verdict on causation, but erred in excluding evidence of subsequent remedial measures regarding warnings, though this error was harmles
• Ramsay v. The Boeing Co.
  432 F.2d 592· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-26 ·cited 19×
• Cridlebaugh v. Rudolph
  131 F.2d 795· 3d Cir.· 1942-11-20 ·cited 19×
  The court held that both patents in suit were invalid due to lack of novelty and improper reissue, and that the trademark 'Specs' was not valid. The counterclaim for libel was remanded for adjudication.
• Nationwide Mut. Co. v. Ft. Myers Total Rehab Ctr., Inc.
  657 F. Supp. 2d 1279· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was met by aggregating claims, and that most of the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss, except for civil conspiracy.
• ALL Underwriters v. Weisberg
  222 F.3d 1309· 11th Cir.· 2000-08-18 ·cited 18×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court's decision striking an insured's demand for attorney's fees in a marine insurance contract dispute. The court held that Florida Statute § 627.428, which provides for attorney's fees to a prevailing insured against an insurer, is subs
• Provau v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  772 F.2d 817· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 18×
  Georgia law permits stacking of medical payment coverage under insurance policies with similar language to those in State Farm v. Johnson, even if the insurer argues policy language prohibits it.
• Goodwin v. George Fischer Foundry Sys., Inc.
  769 F.2d 708· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Alabama's public policy, as interpreted by its Supreme Court, was not sufficiently strong to override the parties' contractual choice of Michigan law for an indemnity provision, despite the employer's workers' compensation immunity under Alabama law.
• Carter v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
  716 F.2d 344· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge's exclusion of industry custom evidence was harmless error and that the plaintiff's expert witness testimony was admissible.
• Estrella v. George A. Brandt, M.D.
  682 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of California's statutes of limitations for medical malpractice actions, finding the plaintiff's complaint timely filed.
• Rayburn C. Hill v. Nelson
  676 F.2d 1371· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in reducing the judgment by the stipulated amount of nonrecoverable economic loss, nor in excluding certain evidence, nor in finding the jury verdict not legally insufficient.
• Kabatoff v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am.
  627 F.2d 207· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an insurer can be liable for bad faith or negligent failure to settle a claim, and the jury's verdict and attorney fee award were supported by sufficient evidence and Oregon law.
• Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bakke
  619 F.2d 885· 10th Cir.· 1980-04-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for bodily injury to passengers was valid and enforceable because the policy was not certified under the New Mexico Financial Responsibility Act, and therefore the exclusion did not conflict with public policy or statutory requ
• First S. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Mobile v. First S. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Jackson Cnty.
  614 F.2d 71· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Mississippi state law governs the trade name dispute and that the appellee's name was not likely to deceive the public under Mississippi law.
• Hines v. Elkhart Gen. Hosp.
  603 F.2d 646· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-03 ·cited 18×
  The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act applies to federal diversity actions filed in Indiana, and constitutional challenges were not properly before the court.
• Schum v. Charles P. Bailey, M.D.
  578 F.2d 493· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court should have applied the New Jersey statute of limitations, not the New York statute, because New Jersey had a substantial interest in the case as the plaintiff's domicile and the location of the defendant's medical practice.
• Atkin F. Seltzer and Helen Seltzer v. Chesley
  512 F.2d 1030· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-03 ·cited 18×
  Erroneous mandatory jury instructions on contributory negligence were effectively cured by subsequent clear and specific permissive instructions, and federal procedural rules govern the manner of jury instructions in federal court.
• Hardberger AND Smylie v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. OF Wis.
  444 F.2d 1318· 10th Cir.· 1971-07-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the insurer had no obligation to defend or indemnify the Partners under the policy's exclusionary clause for trailers used with hired vehicles, but vacated the summary judgment for the insurer against Rabe, remanding for determination of his coverage.
• Lester v. AETNA Life Ins. Co.
  433 F.2d 884· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-28 ·cited 18×
• Moore v. Greene
  431 F.2d 584· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting original promissory notes after trial, that the intentional infliction of mental distress claim was not time-barred and supported by sufficient evidence, and that one of the libel claims was privileged
• Aerosonic Corp. & MacLeod Instrument Corp. v. Trodyne Corp.
  402 F.2d 223· 5th Cir.· 1968-10-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the injunction was properly granted, but the award of damages, including attorney fees and damages for interference with business relations and disparagement, was not supported by the evidence under Florida law.
• McDONALD v. United Airlines, Inc.
  365 F.2d 593· 10th Cir.· 1966-09-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a jury instruction on pre-existing conditions because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the impossibility of apportioning damages, and limitations on closing arguments regarding per diem damages are within the trial co
• Necaise v. The Chrysler Corp.
  335 F.2d 562· 5th Cir.· 1964-07-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict, as the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of negligence and causation for a jury to consider.
• Mooney v. Henderson Portion Pack Co., Inc.
  334 F.2d 7· 6th Cir.· 1964-07-07 ·cited 18×
  Accepting a remittitur under protest does not waive the right to appeal the remittitur order.
• Bartch v. United States
  330 F.2d 466· 10th Cir.· 1964-04-20 ·cited 18×
  The Colorado statutory limitation on gross recovery for wrongful death applies in an action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, even when the case is tried to the court rather than a jury.
• Md. Cas. Co. v. Hallatt
  295 F.2d 64· 5th Cir.· 1961-10-06 ·cited 18×
  The majority holds that an insured's failure to attend a trial is prejudicial to the insurer as a matter of law, making the question of prejudice not a jury issue. The dissenting judge disagrees, arguing that prejudice must be proven and is a question for the jury.
• Berger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  291 F.2d 666· 10th Cir.· 1961-05-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff made a binding election of remedies under Kansas law by unequivocally denying the validity of a release in her initial suit, thus barring her subsequent suit against the insurer based on the fraudulent procurement of that same release.
• Le Roy L. Wilson v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Co.
  275 F.2d 819· 5th Cir.· 1960-03-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding the duty of a driver making a left turn and the burden of proof, nor in its handling of a deadlocked jury.
• Curry v. Pyramid Life Ins. Co. & Home Sav. Ass'n of Kan. City
  271 F.2d 1· 8th Cir.· 1959-10-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's demand for a jury trial was timely because the pleadings were not closed until her reply to the defendant's counterclaim was filed. The court also found that the issue of fraud in procuring an insurance policy is a legal issue triable by jury.
• Gillen v. Phoenix Indem. Co.
  198 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1952-06-24 ·cited 18×
  A federal court jury instruction directing the jury to consider state court damage awards in similar cases as a guide for their own award is erroneous.
• Mut. Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n v. Cohen
  194 F.2d 232· 8th Cir.· 1952-01-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the rider limiting benefits was invalid due to lack of consideration, and that the trial court's interpretation of Missouri law was permissible.
• Cooper v. Brown
  126 F.2d 874· 3d Cir.· 1942-03-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove a written waiver of mortgage interest and that the lower court's finding on the amount of income received by the defendant was not clearly erroneous.