Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1)

520 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 195 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank OF Am.
  549 F.2d 597· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-27 ·cited 141×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the antitrust action based on the act of state doctrine and lack of jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffs should have been afforded an opportunity for full discovery.
• Tomas Menchaca and wife v. Chrysler Credit Corp.
  613 F.2d 507· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-07 ·cited 130×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's dismissal and remand for trial, arguing that the jurisdictional issue was factually intertwined with the merits and should not have been decided summarily.
• The Exch. Nat'l Bank OF Chicago v. Touche Ross & Co.
  544 F.2d 1126· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-09 ·cited 128×
  The court held that the notes at issue were not securities within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as they were issued in a commercial context to finance a business, rather than for investment purposes.
• Bent E. Mortensen and Lise Lotte Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  549 F.2d 884· 3d Cir.· 1977-01-20 ·cited 121×
  The court held that the trial court erred in prematurely dismissing the Sherman Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the allegations of interstate commerce impact were sufficient to withstand a pretrial motion to dismiss.
• Kennedy v. Floridian Hotel, Inc.
  998 F.3d 1221· 11th Cir.· 2021-05-27 ·cited 101×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the ADA claims, but remanded for the dismissal of Count I to be without prejudice.
• Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc.
  692 F.2d 727· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 90×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
  A district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was premature when the jurisdictional facts were intertwined with the merits of the case and discovery was incomplete.
• Young v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Co.
  438 F.2d 757· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-11 ·cited 80×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Dismissal
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 applies to private employment discrimination and that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not deprive district courts of jurisdiction over § 1981 actions.
• IIT v. Cornfeld
  619 F.2d 909· 2d Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 78×
  The court held that subject-matter jurisdiction exists for claims arising from the purchase of American securities (KRC common stock and TCC convertible note) consummated within the United States, and for KRCC convertible debentures which were essentially American securities desp
• Huckeby v. Frozen Food Express
  555 F.2d 542· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-11 ·cited 74×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's dismissal of the intervenor's complaint was not a final decision and was not certified for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b).
• Faye Elizabeth Hall v. Tawney
  621 F.2d 607· 4th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 73×
  Corporal punishment in public schools may violate substantive due process rights if it is brutal, demeaning, and harmful, shocking the conscience of the court, and such claims are cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Claims against school officials directly involved in the punishme
• Augustine v. United States
  704 F.2d 1074· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 69×
  The court held that when the jurisdictional issue of claim accrual under the FTCA is intertwined with the merits of the case, the district court must apply summary judgment standards and resolve the merits to determine jurisdiction.
• Hagerty v. Succession OF Laura McCloskey Clement
  749 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-17 ·cited 68×
  The federal district court correctly dismissed the section 1983 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and the appeal is frivolous, warranting double costs and attorney's fees.
• In re Recticel Foam Corp.
  859 F.2d 1000· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 65×
  The court held that interlocutory cost-sharing orders in complex litigation are not final decisions and do not qualify for the collateral order exception, nor are they suitable for mandamus review.
• Love v. United States
  871 F.2d 1488· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the Loves' claims for conversion and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are cognizable under the FTCA, and their claim against individual officials for denial of due process is a valid Bivens claim.
• Gumer v. Shearson
  516 F.2d 283· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.
• Pressroom Unions-Printers League Income Sec. Fund v. Cont'l Assurance Co.
  700 F.2d 889· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-18 ·cited 58×
  A pension fund cannot assert a federal cause of action under ERISA if it is not explicitly listed as an authorized party, as jurisdictional grants must be clear and cannot be inferred from other statutory language.
• Debora D. Gordon v. Nat'l Youth Work Alliance
  675 F.2d 356· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 57×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the 90-day filing period for Title VII claims is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling, and thus should be addressed under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1).
• Harper Plastics, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp.
  657 F.2d 939· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-24 ·cited 57×
  Res judicata bars a litigant from bringing a contract claim in state court after a federal court dismissed related antitrust claims on the merits, because the litigant split its cause of action by failing to join the contract claim in the federal action.
• Frederick Hart & Co., Inc. v. Recordgraph Corp.
  169 F.2d 580· 3d Cir.· 1948-08-13 ·cited 55×
  The court held that a justiciable controversy exists when a plaintiff alleges threats of infringement and the defendant's actions support such allegations, even if direct threats are denied.
• Wells Real Est., Inc. v. Greater Lowell Bd. OF Realtors
  850 F.2d 803· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to preserve its arguments regarding jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and the nature of the interstate commerce element due to procedural waivers.
• Ames v. Merrill Lynch
  567 F.2d 1174· 2d Cir.· 1977-12-06 ·cited 54×
  The court should give controlling weight to the Commission's interpretation that the regulation applies only to disputes arising after its effective date, thus preserving the validity of pre-existing arbitration clauses.
• Augusta Clark v. Tarrant Cnty.
  798 F.2d 736· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-27 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the Title VII claims against Adult Probation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but correctly affirmed summary judgment for Tarrant County.
• Isadore Goldman v. Sears
  607 F.2d 1014· 1st Cir.· 1979-10-25 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the plaintiff's employment discrimination claims were time-barred because he failed to file charges with the appropriate agencies within the statutory 180-day period, and the allegations did not establish a continuing violation.
• Hunt v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  550 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-12 ·cited 50×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority's interpretation of the act of state doctrine is too broad and would improperly shield defendants from antitrust liability.
• Hohri v. United States
  782 F.2d 227· D.C. Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 48×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the case and that the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity for Takings Clause and contract claims, but not for other monetary claims.
• Ayala v. United States
  550 F.2d 1196· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-28 ·cited 48×
  The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its precedent rejecting pendent party jurisdiction, holding that an independent basis of federal jurisdiction is required for claims against additional parties under the FTCA. However, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of motions to ame
• Rosemound Sand & Gravel Co. v. Lambert Sand & Gravel Co.
  469 F.2d 416· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-08 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite nexus with interstate commerce.
• Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Collins
  921 F.2d 1237· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act does not bar federal jurisdiction if the plaintiff demonstrates that state remedies for tax challenges are inadequate, and that the district court erred by dismissing the case without a full factual inquiry into the adequacy of Georgia's
• Hart v. J. T. Baker Chem. Co.
  598 F.2d 829· 3d Cir.· 1979-05-14 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the time limits for filing a charge under Title VII are not jurisdictional but are subject to equitable tolling, but affirmed the lower court's refusal to toll the time period in this specific case.
• Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Servs., Inc.
  57 F. Supp. 2d 1327· M.D. Fla.· 1999-06-03 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a prima facie case of sexual harassment under Title VII and the FCRA, and that the defendants' motions to dismiss were denied as to those claims.
• A. Peter Crane, M.D. v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc.
  637 F.2d 715· 10th Cir.· 1980-01-08 ·cited 44×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court's prior precedent in Wolf v. Jane Phillips Episcopal-Memorial Medical Center is inconsistent with current antitrust law and Supreme Court pronouncements regarding interstate commerce.
• OTT v. Midland-Ross Corp.
  523 F.2d 1367· 6th Cir.· 1975-10-01 ·cited 44×
  The court held that if a waiver of rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was induced by fraud, the waiver is voidable, and the statute of limitations may be tolled by equitable estoppel.
• Chatham Condo. Ass'ns v. Century Vill., Inc.
  597 F.2d 1002· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-02 ·cited 43×
  The district court erroneously dismissed the antitrust claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the alleged tying arrangement had a substantial effect on interstate commerce sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Sherman and Clayton Acts.
• True v. Comm'r of the Internal Revenue Serv.
  108 F. Supp. 2d 1361· M.D. Fla.· 2000-07-11 ·cited 42×
  The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because appeals of IRS determinations under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 must be brought in the Tax Court when the Tax Court has jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability.
• Gunvant D. Shah v. MT. Zion Hosp. & Med. Ctr.
  642 F.2d 268· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-11 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no merit to the plaintiff's arguments regarding dismissals and summary judgment.
• Kuhlman v. United States
  822 F. Supp. 2d 1255· M.D. Fla.· 2011-08-15 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act applies, barring subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's negligence claim.
• Wheeler v. Main Hurdman
  825 F.2d 257· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 40×
  Federal antidiscrimination laws do not apply to bona fide general partners, as they are not considered employees under these statutes.
• Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp.
  855 F.2d 1188· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court's damage awards must be recalculated to exclude injuries not proven to a reasonable medical certainty.
• Rayford v. Pryor, Jr.
  769 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the appeal from the dismissal was untimely and that the denial of the motion to retain, treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, was not an abuse of discretion due to untimeliness and lack of extraordinary circumstances.
• AIR Prods. & Chems., Inc. v. Reichhold Chems., Inc.
  755 F.2d 1559· Fed. Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 38×
  A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a patent infringement suit if the complaint, on its face, states a claim arising under the patent laws, even if resolution of a contract dispute is necessary.
• Keniston v. Roberts
  717 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction for a due process claim, and that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Dresser Indus., Inc. v. United States
  596 F.2d 1231· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the issues raised by Dresser were not ripe for judicial review because the agency actions were not final and there was no immediate hardship. Furthermore, any alleged contract with the SEC to limit DOJ investigations was unenforceable due to lack of agency aut
• Molnar v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  231 F.2d 684· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-04 ·cited 36×
  A federal court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even on its own initiative, if the pleadings do not affirmatively establish jurisdiction, particularly when fictitious defendants are used to obscure citizenship.
• Efron v. Madeleine Candelario
  110 F.4th 1229· 11th Cir.· 2024-08-02 ·cited 35×
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing state court judgments, and claims that are inextricably intertwined with such judgments are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• LEU v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
  820 F.2d 825· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-08 ·cited 33×
  State law tort claims by railroad employees against a carrier are preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) if their adjudication requires interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.
• Panos Giannakos v. M/V Bravo Trader
  762 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a district court cannot enforce a settlement agreement if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the parties' consent or conduct.
• Gooding v. Warner-Lambert Co.
  744 F.2d 354· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 32×
  Pleading the issuance of a right-to-sue letter is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for maintaining a Title VII employment discrimination claim, and a district court abuses its discretion by denying leave to amend a complaint to allege such issuance when justice requires.
• Est. of David Bass v. Regions Bank, Inc.
  947 F.3d 1352· 11th Cir.· 2020-01-21 ·cited 31×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of common law conversion and negligence claims as preempted by the Georgia UCC, vacated the dismissal of UCC claims for lack of reviewable standing, and affirmed the dismissal of breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims for failure
• Cardio-Medical Assocs., Ltd. v. Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr. & James H. Loucks, M.D.
  721 F.2d 68· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged a substantial and adverse effect on interstate commerce to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but affirmed the striking of their jury demand due to waiver.
• Bolden v. The Pa. State Police
  578 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the McDonald class's motion to intervene as untimely, and that the McDonald class was not adequately represented by the State or FOP.