880 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 130 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint and refusing to consider an amended complaint, as subject matter jurisdiction exists and the plaintiff has standing.
-
575 F.2d 339·
1st Cir.·
1978-05-22
·cited 2×
The court held that the city's 1975 zoning amendments were a valid exercise of police power and did not deprive plaintiffs of property without due process.
-
508 F.2d 136·
10th Cir.·
1974-12-31
·cited 2×
The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state in federal court unless the state has waived its sovereign immunity. Officials acting within their official capacities are also immune from suit.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in submitting the claims of negligence and wantonness to the jury, and the evidence supported the jury's verdicts.
-
440 F.2d 385·
7th Cir.·
1971-01-28
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege a claim cognizable under federal law, and therefore, the district court's dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction was affirmed.
-
431 F.2d 1089·
8th Cir.·
1970-09-22
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the claim involved property rights rather than personal liberties.
-
The court held that the district court properly rejected claims related to the escape conviction but must reconsider claims related to the robbery conviction in light of new precedent.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims do not raise a federal question and that his statements were admissible under the law at the time of his conviction.
-
410 F.2d 234·
7th Cir.·
1969-03-11
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claims were insubstantial and failed to meet the requirements for establishing jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the appellant's contentions regarding insufficient evidence and an illegal search did not present a federal question warranting habeas corpus relief.
-
396 F.2d 573·
8th Cir.·
1968-06-20
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing inspection of jury lists and that the plaintiff failed to prove deliberate or systematic exclusion of Negro jurors.
-
The court held that the applicant was entitled to a hearing on his habeas corpus petition because he alleged denial of his right to appeal due to lack of a transcript, which is a federal question.
-
363 F.2d 582·
6th Cir.·
1966-07-20
·cited 2×
A federal court has jurisdiction over a suit for just compensation for land taken by a county, even if a state condemnation proceeding is pending, if the county knew of the plaintiffs' equitable interest but failed to join them as parties.
-
336 F.2d 530·
9th Cir.·
1964-09-09
·cited 2×
The court held that the complaint did not present a substantial federal question, and therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the action.
-
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for a declaratory judgment because the claims were moot and no facts were alleged to support a declaration that the conviction was null and void.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims did not establish federal jurisdiction, as the editorial did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and the jurisdictional claim was insubstantial.
-
303 F.2d 637·
7th Cir.·
1962-05-18
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish federal court jurisdiction because the action did not involve the requisite amount in controversy or arise under an Act of Congress regulating commerce in a manner sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish the railroad's negligence or proximate cause, and thus affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FELA claim.
-
240 F.2d 495·
9th Cir.·
1957-01-28
·cited 2×
The court held that while federal question jurisdiction was sufficiently alleged to survive a motion to dismiss, the case should be granted summary judgment for the defendant on res judicata grounds.
-
The court held that the appellant's federal rights were not violated by the sentence imposed, as the interpretation of state law was a matter for the Illinois courts.
-
A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus application if the petitioner has not exhausted all available state remedies, including appellate review.
-
2020 WL 1166721·
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
·cited 1×
The court held that the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because it constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction for claims against the SEC, and the Bivens claims against individual defendants are unav
-
2018 WL 10140148·
N.D. Fla.·
2024-10-10
·cited 1×
The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice because the pro se plaintiff failed to comply with court orders to file a proper complaint and pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
1990 WL 16380·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-02-15
·cited 1×
The court held that removal was proper due to federal question jurisdiction over the FCRA claim, and that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, requiring the parties to arbitrate their dispute.
-
664 F. Supp. 2d 1224·
M.D. Fla.·
2009-10-07
·cited 1×
A forum selection clause requiring venue in a specific county does not preclude litigation in the federal court encompassing that county, and certain fraud and securities claims were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss.
-
642 F. Supp. 2d 1330·
S.D. Fla.·
2008-10-24
·cited 1×
The court held that the remaining non-defaulting defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties by approving year-end bonuses or by participating in election rigging, finding their testimony more credible than that of a convicted felon.
-
993 F. Supp. 1448·
M.D. Fla.·
1997-07-09
·cited 1×
The court held that claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) are not removable to federal court and must be remanded to state court.
-
841 F. Supp. 391·
M.D. Fla.·
1993-12-10
·cited 1×
The court held that Plaintiffs were not entitled to the protections of the Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act because they lacked a written franchise agreement with the defendants. Furthermore, any claims related to the Braun dealership were vested in the court-appointed receiv
-
838 F. Supp. 580·
S.D. Fla.·
1993-10-29
·cited 1×
The court held that abstention under the Pullman and Burford doctrines was appropriate because the validity of the county ordinance under state law presented unsettled questions of substantial local concern that could moot federal constitutional issues.
-
986 F.2d 1142·
7th Cir.·
1993-02-25
·cited 1×
The court affirmed the district court's imposition of sanctions against counsel for filing a frivolous lawsuit lacking subject matter jurisdiction.
-
982 F.2d 82·
2d Cir.·
1992-12-21
·cited 1×
A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action claiming ERISA preemption if the plaintiff is not an enumerated party under ERISA § 502(a), and LMRA § 301 does not preempt a state law claim for corporate shareholder liability when the claim is
-
777 F. Supp. 1554·
M.D. Fla.·
1991-10-17
·cited 1×
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, as pled, failed to establish that the insurance benefits were not provided under an employee benefit plan, and therefore the causes of action were preempted by ERISA.
-
757 F. Supp. 1382·
S.D. Fla.·
1991-02-13
·cited 1×
The court held that the County's regulations and fees for limousine services at MIA did not violate the Commerce Clause or the Equal Protection Clause, as they were rationally related to legitimate government interests in traffic control and safety.
-
913 F.2d 305·
6th Cir.·
1990-09-10
·cited 1×
The court held that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the telephone companies' claims and that abstention was improper. However, the case is not ripe for adjudication due to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
-
898 F.2d 1165·
6th Cir.·
1990-03-23
·cited 1×
The court held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Finley's claim was not exclusively within the Claims Court's jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the merits.
-
862 F.2d 184·
9th Cir.·
1988-11-29
·cited 1×
The court held that the plaintiffs' tort claims for damages caused by flooding on their allotted land do not fall within the scope of federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1353 or 25 U.S.C. § 345, as these statutes are intended to protect rights appurtenant to allotments, not co
-
861 F.2d 18·
2d Cir.·
1988-11-02
·cited 1×
The court held that Columbia Marine Services, Inc. lacked a private right of action under the tax treaty to claim refunds of federal excise taxes paid by U.K. insurers, and thus its claims for conversion and RICO violations also failed.
-
679 F. Supp. 1101·
S.D. Fla.·
1988-02-22
·cited 1×
The court held that removal was improper because the plaintiff's complaint, alleging a contractual dispute over chargebacks, did not present a federal question and the Edge Act did not confer jurisdiction over the transaction.
-
634 F. Supp. 741·
S.D. Fla.·
1986-04-22
·cited 1×
The court held that injunctive relief against the state court judge and the state defamation action is barred by judicial immunity and the Anti-Injunction Act, but a claim for damages based on retaliation under Title VI may proceed.
-
527 F. Supp. 284·
S.D. Fla.·
1981-12-04
·cited 1×
A federal savings and loan's suit for mortgage foreclosure based on a 'due on sale' clause, even if authorized by federal regulation, does not arise under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes if the underlying cause of action is state law.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-01-26
The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding the federal takings claim failed for not alleging public use and dismissing state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-17
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the agency's decision to grant employment authorization is committed to agency discretion by law and is not subject to judicial review under the APA or Mandamus Act.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint was due to be stricken for failing to comply with federal and local rules regarding jurisdiction, pleading, and formatting.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
The court held that it has jurisdiction over all counts and that any procedural defect in removal was cured, thus denying remand; it also granted motions to dismiss due to shotgun pleading.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-06
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-04
The court held that the plaintiff's claims are time-barred because the current lawsuit was filed outside the statutory limitations period, and the prior dismissal, though without prejudice, was effectively with prejudice due to the statute of limitations.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-28
The court held that the defendant's grounds for removing a state criminal case to federal court were insufficient.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-10-15
The court recommends dismissal of the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to state a claim and did not comply with court orders regarding filing fees and amended complaints.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-19
The court held that a private debt collector cannot violate due process rights and that diversity jurisdiction was not properly established due to lack of complete diversity. The court also found a forum selection clause in loan documents to be enforceable, requiring dismissal of
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-04
The court recommends granting default judgment on liability for all counts, awarding specific economic damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, but requires further notice regarding noneconomic damages.