Federal Diversity Jurisdiction

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

• Fitzgerald v. Haynes
  241 F.2d 417· 3d Cir.· 1957-02-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the absent local unions were indispensable parties, and thus the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint.
• Peters v. Standard Oil Co. of Tex.
  174 F.2d 162· 5th Cir.· 1949-05-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction to remove the case from state court and did not err in granting a preliminary injunction to protect that jurisdiction.
• Grand Rapids Furniture Co. v. Grand Rapids Furniture Co.
  127 F.2d 245· 7th Cir.· 1942-04-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement because they shared a common cause of action and an undivided interest, analogous to a class action.
• Rosquist v. The SOO Line R.R.
  692 F.2d 1107· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-10 ·cited 12×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the attorneys' fees awarded, as it had the jurisdiction and justification to review the fee agreement, especially given the vulnerable parties involved.
• Prudential OIL Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  546 F.2d 469· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-01 ·cited 12×
  An assignment of a claim by a non-diverse parent corporation to its newly-created, wholly-owned diverse subsidiary, which has no business purpose other than prosecuting the claim, is improper and violates 28 U.S.C. § 1359, as it serves only to manufacture federal diversity jurisd
• Savarese v. Edrick Transfer & Storage, Inc.
  513 F.2d 140· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the default judgment was properly entered because the defendant failed to timely answer, waived defenses by not raising them promptly, and did not demonstrate excusable neglect.
• Bassler v. Herschel S. Arrowood
  500 F.2d 138· 8th Cir.· 1974-07-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while federal jurisdiction might exist for fraud claims, abstention was appropriate due to the case's entanglement with state probate matters and the availability of state court remedies.
• Mason v. Am. Express Co. & Howard L. Clark
  334 F.2d 392· 2d Cir.· 1964-07-02 ·cited 12×
  An unincorporated joint stock association organized under New York law is considered a citizen of New York for the purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Siegerist v. Blaw-Knox Co.
  414 F.2d 375· 8th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the injunction against trademark infringement and unfair competition but modified the order regarding the destruction of certain documents. The court also affirmed the denial of an accounting.
• Calhoun v. Kentucky-W. Va. GAS Co.
  166 F.2d 530· 6th Cir.· 1948-03-15 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for damages, including personal suffering and inconvenience, were substantial enough to establish federal diversity jurisdiction, and the lower court erred in dismissing the case.
• Beach v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
  728 F.2d 407· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the federal district court had jurisdiction, the plaintiff failed to state a claim because Indiana law vests exclusive jurisdiction over employee injury claims with the Industrial Disputes Board, thereby eliminating other causes of action.
• Bryan v. Merrill Lynch
  565 F.2d 276· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant's alleged negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's losses, as there was no evidence the plaintiff would have sold his stock had he received the information he sought.
• London v. Standard OIL Co. OF Cal., Inc.
  417 F.2d 820· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant corporation's allegation of citizenship for removal purposes was a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation, and thus insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.
• McPHAIL v. The L. S. Starrett Co.
  257 F.2d 388· 1st Cir.· 1958-07-18 ·cited 10×
  An employee stock option plan is not illegal for allowing installment payments with dividends credited, nor for granting options without direct consideration, as long as it's approved by stockholders and serves a legitimate corporate purpose like employee retention.
• Central States Co-Ops. v. Watson Bros. Transp. Co.
  165 F.2d 392· 7th Cir.· 1947-12-12 ·cited 10×
  The 1940 amendment to the Judicial Code, which expanded diversity jurisdiction to include controversies between citizens of a state and citizens of the District of Columbia, is unconstitutional as it exceeds Congress's power under Article III of the Constitution.
• Townsend v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.
  144 F.2d 106· 10th Cir.· 1944-07-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's established residence in Oklahoma for venue purposes was not negated by a potential future intention to return to Arkansas.
• J.C. Penney Corp., Inc. v. Oxford Mall, LLC
  100 F.4th 1340· 11th Cir.· 2024-05-01 ·cited 9×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's sanctions award and decision to strike Oxford Mall's affidavit, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Kahal v. J. W. Wilson & Assocs., Inc.
  673 F.2d 547· D.C. Cir.· 1982-03-23 ·cited 9×
  A claim for punitive damages must have a colorable basis in law and fact to satisfy the federal jurisdictional amount requirement when it is the sole basis for jurisdiction.
• Kirby Lumber Corp. v. State OF La.
  293 F.2d 82· 5th Cir.· 1961-07-13 ·cited 9×
  The Fifth Circuit held that the Anacoco-Prairie State Game and Fish Commission, having the power to sue and be sued under state law, is a distinct entity subject to federal diversity jurisdiction, and thus the district court correctly denied the motion to remand.
• Ridder Bros., Inc. v. Blethen
  142 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1944-04-29 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the value of the matter in controversy for federal jurisdiction is measured from the plaintiff's viewpoint, not the defendant's potential loss.
• Rosenfeld v. S.F.C. Corp.
  702 F.2d 282· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-21 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that venue was improper in Massachusetts.
• Kausch v. The First Wichita Nat'l Bank OF Wichita Falls
  470 F.2d 1068· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-28 ·cited 8×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction over will contests, even with diversity, unless state law allows an independent action to annul a will.
• Panama Transp. Co. v. Greenberg
  290 F.2d 125· 1st Cir.· 1961-05-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff attorney's own testimony established that the amount in controversy was less than the jurisdictional minimum, requiring dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction.
• Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Arapahoe Drilling Co.
  267 F.2d 5· 10th Cir.· 1959-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the vacated summary judgment on the counterclaim was not appealable as a final judgment because the counterclaim's relief was dependent on the main case's outcome, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Pasos v. PAN Am. Airways, Inc.
  229 F.2d 271· 2d Cir.· 1956-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction over a suit for trespass on foreign land, even if a state statute allowed such an action, and that the merits of the case involved invalidating foreign government acts.
• Verda Ross Whalen v. Phoenix Indem. Co.
  220 F.2d 78· 5th Cir.· 1955-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiff under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, reversing the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Murarka v. Bachrack Bros., Inc.
  215 F.2d 547· 2d Cir.· 1954-08-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' loss of profits on resale constituted general damages recoverable under New York law when there was no available market for the goods, and the defendant's resale price could not be used to calculate damages. The court also affirmed the lower co
• Bloomfield Vill. Drain Dist. v. Keefe
  119 F.2d 157· 6th Cir.· 1941-03-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while federal courts have jurisdiction, drain districts are not corporations for jurisdictional purposes, and that state court judgments declaring drain projects illegal are res judicata, preventing estoppel by bond recitals against the districts.
• AMT Title Servs. of Tex., LLC v. TAG Agro, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to properly allege the citizenship of the parties, specifically the limited liability companies involved.
• Sunrise Mills (MLP) Ltd. P'ship v. Adams
  688 So. 2d 464· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-03-05 ·cited 7×
  In this personal injury case, the court granted certiorari to review a trial court's order sustaining plaintiff's objection to a request for admission regarding the amount of damages sought. The court held that defendant had a statutory right to discovery concerning the amount in
• Irwin M. Brown v. Pyle
  310 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1962-11-16 ·cited 7×
  A federal court has jurisdiction over a suit arising from an automobile collision in the forum state, but venue is controlled by federal statute, not state nonresident motorist statutes.
• Laird v. United Shipyards, Inc.
  163 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1947-08-13 ·cited 7×
  The New York statute of limitations bars the suit because the alleged cause of action accrued no later than February 28, 1929, and the statute had run before the suit was filed.
• Bankston v. Ill. Nat'l Ins.
  443 F. Supp. 2d 1380· M.D. Fla.· 2006-05-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's removal of the action was untimely because the defendant could have and should have ascertained the removability of the case within the thirty-day statutory period.
• In re Shell OIL Co.
  970 F.2d 355· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·cited 6×
  A post-removal affidavit or stipulation limiting recovery does not authorize remand if the complaint itself established federal jurisdiction.
• Steve D. Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc.
  870 F.2d 1044· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 6×
  A dismissal with prejudice based on a statute of limitations in one federal diversity action has res judicata effect on a duplicative action filed in another federal district court.
• Parlato v. Abbott Labs.
  850 F.2d 203· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 6×
  A common law claim for wrongful discharge cannot be based solely on a violation of public policy embodied in a statute that provides its own administrative remedy.
• Thomes v. Equitable Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  837 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the constitutional issue raised by the plaintiffs regarding the FSLIC's administrative scheme was not ripe for review because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
• The Coca-Cola Co. v. Stewart
  621 F.2d 287· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce fall within the Lanham Act's jurisdiction, reversing the district court's dismissal.
• Albright v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  531 F.2d 132· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 6×
  A federal court's jurisdiction upon removal is determined by the pleadings at the time of removal, and subsequent events reducing the amount in controversy do not divest jurisdiction, even if the same judge previously found the claim insufficient.
• Breault v. Feigenholtz
  380 F.2d 90· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite jurisdictional amount for a federal diversity action to set aside a will, as the action sought an adjudication of validity, not a money judgment, and required substantial proof of value beyond mere allegations.
• Graziano v. Pennell
  371 F.2d 761· 2d Cir.· 1967-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff could not use New York's CPLR § 205(a) to revive a time-barred claim in federal court when a prior timely action was still pending and dismissed for reasons other than those specified in the statute.
• Feuchtwanger Corp. v. Lake Hiawatha Fed. Credit Union
  272 F.2d 453· 3d Cir.· 1959-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federally chartered credit union, localized to a single community, is considered a citizen of that state for diversity jurisdiction purposes. The court also held that evidence of the machinery's failure to perform as specified in the escrow agreement was rel
• Norwood Lumber Corp. v. McKEAN
  153 F.2d 753· 3d Cir.· 1946-02-05 ·cited 6×
  A plaintiff in a diversity case need not prove damages equal to the jurisdictional amount to maintain federal jurisdiction, and the trial court erred in excluding evidence relevant to the plaintiff's damages for breach of contract.
• Craig v. S. Natural Gas Co.
  125 F.2d 66· 5th Cir.· 1942-01-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a suit brought by a state tax collector, even with a commission, is in fact the suit of the state, thus lacking the diversity of citizenship required for federal jurisdiction.
• Connett v. City of Jerseyville
  125 F.2d 121· 7th Cir.· 1941-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it has the power to compel a municipality to perform its statutory duty to adopt a rate schedule, even if that involves a legislative function, as long as the court is not fixing the rates itself.
• Regan v. Marshall
  309 F.2d 677· 1st Cir.· 1962-11-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that interest, regardless of its source, is excluded when calculating the jurisdictional amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction.
• Personis v. Oiler
  889 F.2d 424· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-08 ·cited 4×
  A New York statute providing a sixty-day extension of the statute of limitations applies to federal court diversity suits, as it is an integral part of the state's statute of limitations.
• Homart Dev. Co. v. W.T. Sigman
  868 F.2d 1556· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the conditional option contract's terms were too indefinite to support claims for specific performance or damages, and that the defendant did not waive these deficiencies.
• Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.
  857 F.2d 1293· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 4×
  Goodyear is liable under Arizona's strict product liability law for defective tires manufactured by its subsidiary, despite not being the direct manufacturer or seller.
• Canevero v. Rexach
  793 F.2d 417· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the suit as a domestic relations dispute, which is outside the scope of federal diversity jurisdiction.