Erie Doctrine

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

• Blair v. The Manhattan Life Ins. Co.
  692 F.2d 296· 3d Cir.· 1982-11-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the insurance company failed to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required by Pennsylvania law to prove the applicant had no reasonable basis for believing he had immediate insurance coverage.
• Coleman v. W. Elec. Co., Inc.
  671 F.2d 980· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-03 ·cited 12×
  Under Michigan law, a plaintiff's contributory negligence does not diminish recovery when the absence of an adequate safety device is the proximate cause of the injury.
• Hansen v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  578 F.2d 679· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 12×
  A federal district court in a diversity case must instruct the jury on both negligence and strict liability theories in a products liability case if there is sufficient evidence to support negligence, as required by Wisconsin law.
• Reliance Fin. Corp. & Romer v. Miller
  557 F.2d 674· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the seller did not violate federal securities laws or state fraud claims, and that the buyer was not entitled to rescission based on mutual mistake, failure of consideration, or breach of warranty.
• Weston Funding Corp. v. Lafayette Towers, Inc.
  550 F.2d 710· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a prior New Jersey federal court judgment dismissing a real estate broker's claim for lack of a New Jersey license was a bar to a subsequent action in New York federal court on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
• Gates v. L. G. DeWITT, Inc.
  528 F.2d 405· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting the entire insurance policy into evidence without considering the defendants' objections and the potential prejudice, and that the admissibility of the policy should be reconsidered under correct legal standards.
• Wooten v. White Trucks
  514 F.2d 634· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-16 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the judgment for the defendant based on counsel's waiver of the assumption of risk issue.
• Boruch Leizerowski v. E. Freightways, Inc.
  514 F.2d 487· 3d Cir.· 1975-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that submitting the issue of the plaintiff-driver's contributory negligence to the jury was error, and that the jury should not have been instructed to prove future pain and suffering to a 'reasonable certainty' under Pennsylvania law.
• Lloyd v. Lawrence
  472 F.2d 313· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 12×
  A plaintiff seeking summary judgment on a negotiable instrument must prove they are the present holder of the instrument, and this burden cannot be shifted to the defendant.
• Miss. Power Co. v. Roubicek
  462 F.2d 412· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-08 ·cited 12×
  Under Mississippi law, an indemnity contract can provide indemnification for the indemnitee's own negligence even without express language, provided the parties' intent is clear and unequivocal.
• A. L. Messick and wife v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  460 F.2d 485· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-22 ·cited 12×
• Blakely v. The Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co.
  424 F.2d 728· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-09 ·cited 12×
• Gaston v. B. F. Walker, Inc.
  400 F.2d 671· 5th Cir.· 1968-09-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a Texas court, applying Louisiana law to a tort that occurred in Louisiana, must apply the peremptive one-year limitation period of Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315, even if the plaintiff is a Texas resident.
• Cornellier v. Am. Cas. Co.
  389 F.2d 641· 2d Cir.· 1968-01-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the accident insurance policy's 90-day limitation for loss occurrence, defined as actual severance, unambiguously bars recovery when the amputation occurs more than 90 days after the accident, and this provision does not violate Vermont public policy.
• Mustapha v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  387 F.2d 631· 1st Cir.· 1967-12-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an employer's workmen's compensation carrier is not subject to third-party liability for negligence under the Rhode Island Act.
• Transit Cas. Co. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
  387 F.2d 1011· 8th Cir.· 1967-12-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it was prejudicial error to interject the issue of reinsurance into the trial and that the trial court erred in refusing to submit Count II to the jury.
• Chemline, Inc. v. City OF Grand Prairie
  364 F.2d 721· 5th Cir.· 1966-07-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a city ordinance prohibiting the exhibition of nude or semi-nude pictures visible from public streets is a reasonable exercise of police power to protect children, and that the definition of obscenity used in the ordinances is constitutionally sufficient.
• Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp. OF Am.
  336 F.2d 560· 9th Cir.· 1964-08-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the action for recovery of mining properties was barred by California's five-year statute of limitations because the appellants were neither seised nor possessed of the property within the statutory period, and the deeds conveyed absolute title.
• Riess v. Murchison
  329 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1964-03-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the contract was susceptible to total breach and that the buyers' duty to build the reservoir was conditional on water sufficiency, reversing the trial court's rulings on these points.
• Schultz v. Tecumseh Prods.
  310 F.2d 426· 6th Cir.· 1962-11-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that submitting a claim for breach of implied warranty to the jury was error because Kentucky law, which applied, required privity of contract, and no such privity existed between the plaintiff and the defendant manufacturer.
• Fore Improvement Corp. v. George R. Selig-Appellee. In the Matter of Tru-Seal Aluminum Prods. Corp.
  278 F.2d 143· 2d Cir.· 1960-05-03 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that New York law would not permit the landlord to set off the deposit against unpaid rent due to commingling.
• Inez B. Mintzer v. Arthur L. Wright & Co., Inc.
  263 F.2d 823· 3d Cir.· 1959-02-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appointment of a receiver was an abuse of discretion because the plaintiffs failed to establish a sufficient equitable interest in the defendant's property or demonstrate fraud, imminent danger, or inadequate legal remedies under Pennsylvania law.
• The Home Ins. Co. v. Riddell
  252 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1958-01-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the motor carrier, Riddell, was a private-contract carrier, not a common carrier, because he conditioned his willingness to carry upon the negotiation of a satisfactory price for each shipment and frequently turned down business.
• Jones v. Schellenberger
  225 F.2d 784· 7th Cir.· 1955-09-06 ·cited 12×
  A prior decree directing an accounting in a partnership dissolution suit is not final or res judicata as to defenses raised, and federal courts must apply intervening state law, including intermediate appellate court decisions, as authoritative.
• Bank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Tr. Co. (two cases)
  209 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1953-12-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Wells Fargo should be relieved of liability for interest on a disputed deposit because the circumstances presented complex legal and factual issues without clear precedent, making it inequitable to penalize the bank.
• Yellow Cab Co. v. City of Chicago
  186 F.2d 946· 7th Cir.· 1951-01-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it could not definitively determine Illinois law regarding a municipality's liability for breach of contract in its governmental capacity and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing declaratory relief.
• F. H. McGRAW & Co., Inc. v. Milcor Steel Co.
  149 F.2d 301· 2d Cir.· 1945-02-28 ·cited 12×
  A creditor cannot reallocate payments previously applied to an existing debt to a subsequently arising debt, especially when a surety's liability is involved.
• Merly Nunez v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
  685 F.3d 1205· 11th Cir.· 2012-04-03 ·cited 11×
  Plaintiff Núñez appealed the dismissal of her class action complaint challenging GEICO's requirement that she submit to an examination under oath (EUO) as a condition precedent to receiving personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under Florida's No-Fault automobile insurance st
• Escareno v. Noltina Crucible & Refractory Corp.
  139 F.3d 1456· 11th Cir.· 1998-05-01 ·cited 11×
  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the Supreme Court of Georgia regarding the proper interpretation of O.C.G.A. § 15-9-31(2) concerning the appointment of an administrator for a nonresident decedent's estate. The court found ambiguity in the statute's r
• Lomax v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
  964 F.2d 1343· 3d Cir.· 1992-05-18 ·cited 11×
  The court held that Delaware law applies the collateral source rule to uninsured motorist (UM) claims, allowing recovery from the UM carrier even if medical bills were previously paid by another source.
• Indep. Petrochemical Corp. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  944 F.2d 940· D.C. Cir.· 1991-09-13 ·cited 11×
  Under Missouri law, the term 'damages' in standard comprehensive general liability insurance policies includes sums the insured is legally obligated to pay for environmental cleanup costs. A policy covering affiliated companies expired when the insured company was sold and no lon
• Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  911 F.2d 1044· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-14 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the uncalled-witness rule is an anachronism under the Federal Rules of Evidence and that the damages awarded were not clearly erroneous.
• Allstate Ins. v. Travers
  703 F. Supp. 911· N.D. Fla.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify the insured because the alleged injuries fall within the policy's exclusion for bodily injury which may reasonably be expected to result from intentional or criminal acts.
• United States v. Anderson Cnty.
  761 F.2d 1169· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-10 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the United States, holding that Union Carbide's interest in the federally-owned Y-12 Plant was a mere license, not a taxable real property interest under Tennessee law.
• Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank IN Dallas
  359 F.2d 641· 5th Cir.· 1966-03-31 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the common meaning of 'passenger' does not include the pilot of an aircraft, and therefore the pilot's death was not covered under the policy's exception.
• Jenkins v. Dell Publ'g Co.
  251 F.2d 447· 3d Cir.· 1958-01-13 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the primary purpose of the photograph's use, not its subsequent publication, determines privacy invasion.
• Mitcheson v. Harris
  955 F.2d 235· 4th Cir.· 1992-01-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in issuing a declaratory judgment on the merits of Lloyd's policy coverage, but correctly issued a declaratory judgment on the duty to defend.
• Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc.
  920 F.2d 259· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the procedural provisions of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, including the burden-of-proof provision, apply retroactively to cases where the cause of action accrued before the Act's effective date, as the legislature did not express a contrary intent.
• In re Allied-Signal, Inc.
  919 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 10×
  A writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel a district court to vacate a remand order issued on grounds other than those specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), even if the district court erred in its interpretation of state law.
• Konradi v. United States & Robert E. Farringer
  919 F.2d 1207· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 10×
• Green v. Leslie Walker, M.D.
  910 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 10×
  An examining physician owes a duty of care to an employee undergoing a required employment physical, including diagnosing results and timely reporting findings that pose an imminent danger.
• Mozeke v. Int'l Paper Co.
  856 F.2d 722· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the contract work performed by the contractor was part of the principal's trade, business, or occupation, making the principal the statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability.
• Hunt OIL Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  853 F.2d 1226· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 10×
  The presiding AU did not err by giving less evidentiary weight to extrinsic evidence of intent than to contract language, as the AU permissibly determined the extrinsic evidence was unreliable.
• Godchaux v. Conveying Techniques, Inc.
  846 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that withdrawal liability under ERISA does not arise until an employer actually withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan, not when the plan develops an unfunded vested liability. The court also held that a warranty to prepare financial statements according to GA
• Rosenthal Toyota, Inc. v. Thorpe
  824 F.2d 897· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict for civil theft, conversion, and civil conspiracy, and that the district court correctly trebled compensatory damages while eliminating punitive damages.
• Rann v. W.P. McINNIS, M.D.
  789 F.2d 374· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants' contacts with Michigan were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute.
• Herber v. Johns-Manville Corp.
  785 F.2d 79· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that New Jersey law allows recovery for future medical monitoring and emotional distress due to fear of cancer, but not for the increased risk of cancer itself without proof of probable future illness. The jury's finding of liability and zero damages was upheld.
• Nat'l Res. Trading, Inc. v. Trans Freight Lines [Maher Terminals
  766 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 10×
  A stevedore and terminal operator who receives cargo for storage under a compensated arrangement is a bailee for hire and is liable for unexplained loss of goods, even if the loss occurs after an accident damages the packaging.
• Trembath v. ST. Regis Paper Co.
  753 F.2d 603· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a prima facie case of age discrimination requires proof of an existing job vacancy, not merely the probability of a future opening.
• Boardman v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n
  742 F.2d 847· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The court certified decisive questions of Mississippi law to the Mississippi Supreme Court, finding that the choice of law and application of insurance policy provisions were unclear under Mississippi's 'center of gravity' test.