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

• Orion Marine Constr., Inc. v. Carroll
  918 F.3d 1323· 11th Cir.· 2019-03-20 ·cited 29×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  Orion Marine Construction sought to limit its liability under the Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act for property damage claims arising from pile-driving vibrations during a bridge construction project in Florida, but the district court dismissed the suit as untimely, holdin
• Roman v. United States Postal Serv.
  821 F.2d 382· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 29×
  A former postal employee who claims he was fraudulently induced to resign must exhaust contractual grievance procedures under the collective bargaining agreement before suing, even if he believes he is no longer an employee.
• Palmerin v. City OF Riverside
  794 F.2d 1409· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that guilty pleas were admissible as admissions of resistance and that the failure to object contemporaneously at trial after an unsuccessful motion in limine did not waive the appeal issue. The court also dismissed the appeal regarding the marijuana due to an inco
• Hunt v. Local Bd. NO. 197
  438 F.2d 1128· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction in the district court because his claims involved factual determinations and discretionary judgments by the local board, which are barred from pre-induction review by statute.
• Al-Hakim Allah v. Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  871 F.2d 887· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's opening brief could be construed as a timely notice of appeal because the district court failed to enter a separate judgment, and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court's dismissal of the appellant'
• McCARTHY v. United States
  850 F.2d 558· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 26×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the United States is immune from liability under the Flood Control Act of 1928, 33 U.S.C. § 702c, for injuries sustained by a recreational user of a federal flood control project, even if the injury is related to the recreational use and not a direct flood eve
• Adams v. Bain
  697 F.2d 1213· 4th Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the appellants' claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the allegations, if proven, could establish state action and a violation of constitutional rights.
• Sacks v. Reynolds Sec., Inc.
  593 F.2d 1234· D.C. Cir.· 1978-12-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a custodial transfer of stock accounts between brokers, without a change in ownership or control, does not constitute a "sale" under Rule 10b-5, and that NYSE Rule 412 does not create an implied private federal right of action.
• O'Donnell v. Wien AIR Alaska, Inc.
  551 F.2d 1141· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-06 ·cited 26×·via Rule 12(B)(1)
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action and granting summary judgment, as the fire-hire policy was intertwined with the major dispute regarding crew complement, necessitating a status quo injunction.
• Evans v. Lynn
  537 F.2d 571· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 26×
  The dissent argues that minority residents of a county should have standing to challenge federal agency inaction in furthering housing policy mandates.
• Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc.
  926 F.2d 1406· 3d Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged a pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d) by alleging a 19-month scheme of mail fraud.
• Foremost-McKESSON, Inc. v. The Islamic Republic OF Iran
  905 F.2d 438· D.C. Cir.· 1990-06-15 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing Iran to amend its answer to include the defense of sovereign immunity, but remanded for further factual development on whether Iran exercised sufficient control over the dairy to overcome the presumption of separatene
• Thigpen v. United States
  800 F.2d 393· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that claims arising out of assault or battery by a government employee are barred by the FTCA's intentional tort exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), even if pleaded as negligence, and that the plaintiffs' resistance negated any claim of consent.
• Hornsby v. United States Postal Serv.
  787 F.2d 87· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-26 ·cited 25×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
  The court held that the time limits for filing a Title VII action are statutes of limitation, not jurisdictional, and that depositing a postal notice in a mailbox does not constitute 'receipt of notice' if the actual letter is not received.
• Boda v. United States
  698 F.2d 1174· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the United States were barred by sovereign immunity and the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that the district court should have dismissed on jurisdictional grounds rather than for failure to state a claim.
• Hawes v. Club Ecuestre EL Comandante
  598 F.2d 698· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-18 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the plaintiffs established domicile in New York for diversity jurisdiction purposes, reversing the district court's dismissal.
• Cowan v. Keystone Emp. Profit Sharing Fund
  586 F.2d 888· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-21 ·cited 24×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that federal jurisdiction under ERISA's civil enforcement section (29 U.S.C. § 1132) is precluded for causes of action that arose or acts/omissions that occurred before January 1, 1975, due to the interaction with 29 U.S.C. § 1144.
• United Elec. Radio & Mach. Workers OF Am. v. Honeywell Inc.
  522 F.2d 1221· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-27 ·cited 24×
  A union's allegations of an employer's persistent violation of a collective bargaining agreement and prior arbitration awards are insufficient to justify bypassing the contractual arbitration process unless specific criteria are met, which were not alleged here.
• Ga. Ass'n of Latino Elected Officials, Inc. v. Gwinnett Cnty. Bd. of Registration & Elections
  36 F.4th 1100· 11th Cir.· 2022-06-08 ·cited 23×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials and other voter advocacy organizations challenged Georgia's failure to provide bilingual voting materials in Gwinnett County during the 2020 election under Sections 203 and 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act. The Eleventh Circuit hel
• AmeriFirst Bank v. Bomar
  757 F. Supp. 1365· S.D. Fla.· 1991-01-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the assignment of federal securities claims was valid and not champertous or collusive, but declined to create federal common law for breach of fiduciary duty claims, dismissing ADCO's state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.
• Lunderstadt v. Colafella
  885 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations or protected by legislative and testimonial immunity, and that plaintiffs failed to diligently pursue discovery.
• Melvin A. Seglin, M.D. v. Truman Esau
  769 F.2d 1274· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a substantial effect on interstate commerce, thus failing to state a claim under the Sherman Act.
• O'Quinn v. Manuel
  773 F.2d 605· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, as the plaintiff's allegations, if true, could establish a violation of his constitutional rights. However, the dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed, but the case
• Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n
  749 F.2d 1378· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 22×
  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of both the antitrust action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the act of state doctrine and the tort actions on forum non conveniens grounds.
• Loge v. United States & unknown Emps. of the Dep't of Health
  662 F.2d 1268· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that claims based on the government's discretionary functions in regulating vaccines are barred by sovereign immunity, but claims alleging violation of mandatory regulations and negligence under Arkansas law are not. Constitutional claims were dismissed.
• Moreland v. W. Pa. Interscholastic Athletic League & Pa. Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n & Sch. Dist. of the Borough of Aliquippa
  572 F.2d 121· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-27 ·cited 22×·via Rule 12(B)(1)
  The court held that the PIAA's suspension of Aliquippa High School's basketball team from post-season play, due to prior rule violations, was rationally related to legitimate athletic league purposes and did not violate equal protection. However, the district court improperly dis
• Bryan v. Stillwater Bd. OF Realtors
  578 F.2d 1319· 10th Cir.· 1977-07-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations did not establish a conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce or an unlawful monopoly actionable under the federal antitrust laws, and thus the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim and lack of subject m
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hillman
  796 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the substitution of USF&G for Aetna did not cure the lack of diversity jurisdiction because the original plaintiff lacked standing, rendering the amendment a new lawsuit, and subsequent events do not create jurisdiction.
• Carol A. Gelley for the Heirs of Richard Lawrence Gelley v. Astra Pharm. Prods. Inc.
  610 F.2d 558· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a cause of action cognizable under Minnesota law, and thus the Federal Tort Claims Act did not waive sovereign immunity for the United States.
• Save OUR Cemeteries, Inc. v. The Archdiocese OF NEW Orleans, Inc.
  568 F.2d 1074· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the antitrust claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the civil rights claims were properly affirmed as summary judgment. The court expressed no opinion on state law claims.
• Garcia v. Santa Maria Resort, Inc.
  528 F. Supp. 2d 1283· S.D. Fla.· 2007-11-15 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims failed to meet the heightened pleading standards for securities fraud and general plausibility, and were also barred by the statute of limitations and the bespeaks caution doctrine.
• Voluntary Purchasing Grps., Inc. v. Reilly
  889 F.2d 1380· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-27 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because CERCLA, as amended by SARA, precludes judicial review of EPA response actions prior to the filing of a cost-recovery suit by the government.
• Barrett Computer Servs., Inc. v. PDA, Inc.
  884 F.2d 214· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-25 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on a lack of standing, as a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the assignment of rights.
• Nova Stylings, Inc. v. Ladd
  695 F.2d 1179· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 19×
  The district court properly dismissed the mandamus action because the Administrative Procedure Act provides an adequate alternative remedy, precluding mandamus jurisdiction.
• Douglas v. United States
  814 F.3d 1268· 11th Cir.· 2016-02-29 ·cited 18×·via Rule 12(B)(1) Motion To Dismiss
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the inmate's pay claim, finding that the discretionary function exception did not apply because Bureau of Prisons regulations mandated the payment of vested wages. The court affirmed the dismissal of the inmate's oth
• 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.
• Norris v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co.
  881 F.2d 1144· 1st Cir.· 1989-08-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that federal law, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 5851, does not preempt state law wrongful discharge claims, and that Massachusetts law recognizes such claims for salaried employees.
• Tarleton v. Meharry Med. Coll.
  717 F.2d 1523· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a nexus between the challenged Medical Practice Plan and interstate commerce to establish Sherman Act jurisdiction, reversing the district court's dismissal on that ground. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of federal
• Cloverleaf Standardbred Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. The Nat'l Bank OF Wash.
  699 F.2d 1274· D.C. Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 18×
  A district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 when a necessary party could not be joined without destroying diversity jurisdiction.
• Williamson v. Tucker
  632 F.2d 579· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the joint venture interests and notes could be considered securities.
• Southard v. Southard
  305 F.2d 730· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-23 ·cited 18×
• Redmon v. United States
  934 F.2d 1151· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the FAA's decision to allow pilots to carry over their instrument flight ratings to multiengine aircraft without a practical test, and the decision to implement a grace period for such pilots, were discretionary functions protected by the FTCA. Therefore, the
• In re Joint Eastern AND Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation. In the Matter of Sally Robinson v. United States
  891 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the discretionary function exception applies to claims brought under the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Clarification Act, shielding the United States from liability for decisions involving policy judgment, including the use of asbestos in ship construction an
• Portland Audubon Soc'y v. Hodel
  866 F.2d 302· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the environmental groups' claims based on a jurisdictional withdrawal statute, as the statute preserved the right to challenge particular activities. The court also affirmed the denial of intervention for intervenors on t
• Canadian Overseas Ores Ltd. v. Compania de Acero del Pacifico S.A.
  727 F.2d 274· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive its sovereign immunity defense by failing to assert it in its initial motions, as the defense can be raised until a responsive pleading is filed.
• Williams v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'rs
  689 F.2d 1212· 1st Cir.· 1982-10-25 ·cited 16×
  A state prisoner's claim attacking the constitutionality of his incarceration due to discriminatory jury selection is cognizable only through habeas corpus, not under § 1983, and must first exhaust state remedies.
• Jacqueline and Salvadore A. DiPIPPA v. United States
  687 F.2d 14· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a substantial question of Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) coverage exists, requiring a stay of proceedings rather than dismissal, and that FECA exclusivity, if applicable, would bar the swine flu claim.
• Kelsey v. Dr. Ewing
  652 F.2d 4· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the inmate's complaint, as sufficient unrebutted allegations raised genuine factual issues regarding unconstitutional medical care.
• Winkleman v. NEW York Stock Exch.
  445 F.2d 786· 3d Cir.· 1971-08-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without affording the appellants an opportunity to be heard, but did not err in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction based on the likelihood of success on the merits.
• Application of Robert Matherson & the Oak Beach Inn Corp. v. The Long Island State Park Comm'n & the Jones Beach Parkway Auth.
  442 F.2d 566· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Long Island State Park Commission is not an alter ego of the state and thus not immune from suit, but the case must be remanded due to lack of alleged jurisdictional amount in controversy.