Federal Diversity Jurisdiction

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

• MAS v. Perry
  489 F.2d 1396· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-22 ·cited 72×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper because Mrs. Mas retained her Mississippi citizenship and the jurisdictional amount was met in good faith by Mr. Mas.
• Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Constr. Co., Inc.
  597 F.2d 596· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 69×
  A state cannot assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation that has conducted no activities within the state, even if the plaintiff performed contractual obligations there.
• Casio, Inc. v. S.M. & R. Co., Inc.
  755 F.2d 528· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the district court had diversity jurisdiction and that the defendant failed to establish a contractual right to return unsold watches, thus affirming the judgment for the plaintiff.
• Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Food Fair, Inc.
  177 F.2d 177· 1st Cir.· 1949-09-21 ·cited 62×
  Federal jurisdiction was proper because the potential value of protecting the plaintiff's trade name in a new market, including the right to expand without local competition, exceeded the jurisdictional minimum. The Massachusetts statute provided grounds for injunctive relief aga
• Bobby Jones Garden Apts., Inc. v. Suleski
  391 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-26 ·cited 58×
  A federal court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, based on a determination of state law, is improper if there is a good faith expectation that the claim is valid under state law, as this implicates removability and federal jurisdiction.
• Minnehaha Cnty. v. Kelley
  150 F.2d 356· 8th Cir.· 1945-07-11 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the administratrix's citizenship established federal jurisdiction, the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for failure to maintain a bridge, and evidence regarding the beneficiaries' physical condition was admissible to assess pecuniary loss.
• Marvine Markham v. City OF Newport News
  292 F.2d 711· 4th Cir.· 1961-06-19 ·cited 48×
  A state statute cannot prevent a plaintiff from accessing federal diversity jurisdiction to enforce a state-created right, as federal court jurisdiction is determined by federal law, not state legislative attempts to restrict it.
• Barthel v. Stamm
  145 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1944-11-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the amended petition related back to the original filing date, thus avoiding the statute of limitations, and that the defendant was incompetent to testify to an agreement contradicting the written loan documents.
• Frederic T. Mertens, Sr. v. The Flying Tiger Line, Inc.
  341 F.2d 851· 2d Cir.· 1965-02-16 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the Warsaw Convention applies to military charter flights and that inadequate delivery of a passenger ticket renders the Convention's liability limitations inapplicable.
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc.
  253 F.2d 780· 6th Cir.· 1958-04-01 ·cited 44×
  A valid defense to a claim does not, as a matter of legal certainty, preclude federal jurisdiction if the plaintiff's claim for the jurisdictional amount was made in good faith.
• Marv Hixon v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
  671 F.2d 1005· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 40×
  A pendent party must independently satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, and a principal is generally not liable for the torts of an independent contractor unless the activity is inherently hazardous or the contractor was negligently selected.
• Gatenby v. Altoona Aviation Corp. & Paul Peterson
  407 F.2d 443· 3d Cir.· 1968-12-19 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the pilot's actions constituted negligence per se as a matter of law.
• Bennett v. Bennett
  682 F.2d 1039· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 35×
  The court held that federal courts can enforce state custody decrees and that a party should not be forced to waive injunctive relief to proceed in federal court.
• Parke-Davis & Co. v. Stromsodt
  411 F.2d 1390· 8th Cir.· 1969-06-09 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support findings of proximate causation, breach of implied warranty, and negligence.
• Anne Arnold and Edward E. Arnold v. Tex Troccoli
  344 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1965-05-03 ·cited 34×
  A district court has the power to dismiss diversity suits where it is clear to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional minimum amount.
• Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occidental S.S. Co.
  287 F.2d 252· 5th Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 34×
  A case removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction must affirmatively demonstrate the jurisdictional amount at the time of removal; a plaintiff's complaint stating damages "in excess of $5,000" does not meet the federal requirement of exceeding $10,000.
• Stool v. J. C. Penney Co., Inc.
  404 F.2d 562· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-18 ·cited 29×
  A covenant to repair in a lease does not impose a duty to repair until the covenantor has received notice or knowledge of the condition of disrepair, unless the lease explicitly states otherwise.
• Moor v. Madigan
  458 F.2d 1217· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a county is not a 'person' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law cannot create municipal liability under § 1988 if it contradicts federal law. It also held that pendent state claims against a municipality cannot be brought in federal court if no federal claim
• Troup v. McCART
  238 F.2d 289· 5th Cir.· 1956-11-14 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the lower court correctly dismissed the action for lack of federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff's individual claim did not meet the $3,000 threshold and the action was not a 'true' class action allowing for aggregation of claims.
• Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co. & Halliburton Co.
  688 F.2d 256· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-16 ·cited 22×
  The court granted appellants leave to amend their pleadings to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, remanding the case for that purpose.
• Mich. Tech Fund v. Century Nat'l Bank OF Broward
  680 F.2d 736· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 22×
  Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over claims seeking interpretation of a will, reformation of a mortgage, and adjudication of contract breaches, even when a state probate proceeding is pending, as long as the federal court does not interfere with the probate proceedings
• Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alejandro Alfonzo-Larrain R.
  854 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 20×
  The court agrees with the majority's result and much of its reasoning, while also sympathizing with the dissent's concerns about jurisdictional errors.
• Walker v. United States Gypsum Co.
  270 F.2d 857· 4th Cir.· 1959-10-05 ·cited 20×
  A manufacturer performing construction work for itself, even if not for others, can be a statutory employer under Virginia's Workmen's Compensation Act, making the injured subcontractor's employee's exclusive remedy a proceeding before the Industrial Commission.
• Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co. v. Steinheider
  268 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1959-07-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the value of the right to be free from the defendant's competition exceeded $10,000, thus affirming the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Erwin v. Barrow
  217 F.2d 522· 10th Cir.· 1954-11-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Oklahoma venue statutes, when construed in light of federal diversity jurisdiction, did not preclude an administrator from suing in federal court when the land was located within the federal district.
• Rosenberg v. Baum
  153 F.2d 10· 10th Cir.· 1946-01-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the federal court had jurisdiction to determine heir interests and that the evidence did not establish that Birdie held property in trust for Harry or that Harry's estate was not consumed by Birdie's expenditures.
• Andrews v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
  124 F.2d 788· 7th Cir.· 1941-11-15 ·cited 20×
  Individual policyholder claims against a mutual insurance company's surplus funds are several and cannot be aggregated to meet the federal jurisdictional amount if each claim individually falls below that threshold.
• Taylor v. Nelson
  788 F.2d 220· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-11 ·cited 19×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear appeals from both the order denying a stay pending arbitration and the order vacating the arbitration award, and that the motion to vacate was untimely filed.
• Nicolae Dragan v. John and Sylvia Miller
  679 F.2d 712· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 19×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction over a suit that, despite its labels, is effectively a challenge to a will's validity due to undue influence, as such claims are ancillary to probate proceedings in Illinois.
• Dassinger v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co.
  505 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-20 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and in granting summary judgment for the defendant.
• Eagle Star Ins. Co. v. Augustin Maltes
  313 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1963-03-01 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the claims of multiple judgment creditors against an insurer cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy when they sue directly on their individual judgments, as they lack a common and undivided interest.
• Minsky's Follies of Fla., Inc. v. Sennes
  206 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1953-08-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a claim for loss of use of premises under an oral lease longer than one year is barred by the Statute of Frauds, but claims for expenses incurred at the defendant's request are not barred and federal jurisdiction is determined by the amount in controversy as a
• Alvah L. Snow v. Ford Motor Co.
  561 F.2d 787· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the amount in controversy for removal jurisdiction cannot be met by aggregating individual claims, even when injunctive relief is sought, if those claims are separate and distinct.
• Miller v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. (hereafter AT&T)
  507 F.2d 759· 3d Cir.· 1974-11-04 ·cited 18×
  A complaint alleging directors failed to collect a debt owed by a political committee, which constituted an illegal corporate contribution in violation of federal law, states a claim for breach of fiduciary duty sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
• Green v. Hale
  433 F.2d 324· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-20 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jurisdictional rulings or the trial court's evidentiary and instructional decisions.
• Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. NEW CUT Rate Liquors, Inc.
  245 F.2d 453· 7th Cir.· 1957-05-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding it had federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to provide competent proof that the amount in controversy exceeded $3,000.
• Conn. Indem. Co. v. LEE
  168 F.2d 420· 1st Cir.· 1948-06-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the accident arose out of the unloading of the truck, thus falling within the coverage of the plaintiff's insurance policy.
• Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Kortz
  151 F.2d 582· 10th Cir.· 1945-10-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court should not have dismissed the declaratory judgment actions, but the decision to entertain them rests within the trial court's discretion.
• Devore v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
  658 F. Supp. 2d 1372· M.D. Fla.· 2009-09-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a possibility of a valid claim against the non-diverse defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeded the federal threshold, thus denying remand.
• Patrician Towers Owners, Inc. v. Charles M. Fairchild (Individually and as general partner
  513 F.2d 216· 4th Cir.· 1975-03-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the plaintiffs' standing and the court's jurisdiction, requiring a remand.
• Lamberg v. Robert J. Callahan under the Will of Ernest Wood
  455 F.2d 1213· 2d Cir.· 1972-02-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the mutual wills executed by the Woods were intended to be irrevocable.
• Woodward v. D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc.
  428 F.2d 880· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants waived their objection to the removal of the case to federal court by not moving for remand and by participating in the litigation, and that their delay in asserting a counterclaim for professional malpractice barred them from doing so at this l
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Emmett Horton
  275 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1960-02-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the amount claimed before the Industrial Accident Board, and the employee's counterclaim, established the requisite amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, even if the Board's award was less.
• Dep't of Highways of La. v. Morse Bros. & Assocs., Inc.
  211 F.2d 140· 5th Cir.· 1954-03-12 ·cited 16×
  The Department of Highways, despite not being a true corporation, possesses sufficient corporate-like attributes and powers, including the ability to sue and be sued, to be considered a citizen for federal diversity jurisdiction. Furthermore, a formal putting in default was not r
• Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Carolina Peanut Co.
  186 F.2d 816· 4th Cir.· 1951-02-03 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of negligence and that the insurance company should have been allowed to intervene to recover its proportionate share of the damages.
• Est. of Jackson v. Ventas Realty
  812 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2011-09-12 ·cited 14×
  A Florida statutory supplemental proceeding under Section 56.29 to enforce a state court judgment is not a "civil action" removable to federal court because it is an ancillary continuation of the original state court action and federal courts lack original jurisdiction over such
• Levy v. Weissman
  671 F.2d 766· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-23 ·cited 14×
  A writ of mandamus will be granted to vacate a district court's order remanding a properly removed case to state court solely as a sanction for the petitioner's failure to comply with a local rule or a court order.
• Bossom v. Bossom
  551 F.2d 474· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that federal courts should decline jurisdiction in domestic relations cases that are "on the verge" of the matrimonial exception, especially when state courts are better equipped to handle them.
• Blanche Sykes v. United States
  290 F.2d 555· 9th Cir.· 1961-04-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case for lack of prosecution, as the delay was only slightly over six months and there was no intent to abandon the case.
• Kaufman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  245 F.2d 918· 3d Cir.· 1957-07-03 ·cited 14×
  A stipulation by parties to establish federal jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy is insufficient if the jurisdictional prerequisite is denied and not otherwise proven.