Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 13(A)

90 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• IVY Broad. Co., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. & N.Y. Tel. Co.
  391 F.2d 486· 2d Cir.· 1968-02-13 ·cited 87×
  A federal court has jurisdiction over claims for negligence and breach of contract in interstate telephone service, as these claims arise under federal law, and over counterclaims for unpaid charges that are compulsory or arise under the Communications Act.
• Plant v. Blazer Fin. Servs.
  598 F.2d 1357· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-23 ·cited 85×
• Mrs. Harvey Stancill v. McKENZIE Tank Lines, Inc.
  497 F.2d 529· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-27 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony, allowing a counterclaim, or entering judgment on the jury's verdict, as the jury's findings had a rational basis in the evidence and any alleged inconsistencies were waived or harmless.
• Zimmerman v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Rapid City
  848 F.2d 1047· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-06 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the jury's verdict, the directed verdict, or the evidentiary rulings. The court also affirmed the denial of motions to dismiss and the admission of certain evidence.
• Koufakis v. Carvel
  425 F.2d 892· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-24 ·cited 57×
  The court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial due to the cumulative effect of grossly prejudicial arguments made by the plaintiff's trial counsel, which the trial judge failed to adequately address.
• Gorenstein Enters., Inc. v. Quality Care-Usa, Inc.
  874 F.2d 431· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-02 ·cited 53×
  The court's essential reasoning on prejudgment interest is sound and does not depart from circuit law.
• United States v. The Heyward-Robinson Co., Inc.
  430 F.2d 1077· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the counterclaim relating to the Stelma job was not compulsory under F.R.Civ.P. 13(a) because it did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim.
• Gen. Guar. Ins. Co. v. NEW Orleans Gen. Agency, Inc.
  427 F.2d 924· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-15 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by filing a motion to stay proceedings, pleading alternatively, or participating in preliminary court actions.
• Great Lakes Rubber Corp. v. Herbert Cooper Co., Inc.
  286 F.2d 631· 3d Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Great Lakes' counterclaim was compulsory and thus the court had ancillary jurisdiction to hear it.
• Valencia v. Anderson Bros. Ford & Ford Motor Credit Co.
  617 F.2d 1278· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 39×
• Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler
  287 F.2d 43· 2d Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a district court abused its discretion by enjoining proceedings in another district after the first court had already considered and denied motions regarding venue and transfer.
• Crouse-Hinds Co. v. Internorth, Inc.
  634 F.2d 690· 2d Cir.· 1980-11-14 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court improperly allocated the burden of proof regarding the business judgment rule when assessing the merits of InterNorth's counterclaim for a preliminary injunction.
• Dragor Shipping Corp. v. Union Tank CAR Co.
  378 F.2d 241· 9th Cir.· 1967-04-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court lacked in personam jurisdiction to dismiss Dragor's compulsory counterclaim because the prior ruling that it lacked jurisdiction for the complaint implicitly meant it lacked jurisdiction for all purposes.
• Columbia Plaza Corp. v. Sec. Nat'l Bank
  525 F.2d 620· D.C. Cir.· 1975-10-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the District Court erred in denying a preliminary injunction to enjoin prosecution of a New York action, as the claims constituted a compulsory counterclaim that should be litigated in the District of Columbia.
• Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank
  848 F.2d 414· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the debtor's claims were not precluded by claim preclusion, equitable estoppel, or judicial estoppel, and that the bankruptcy court's prior judgments would not be undermined by these claims.
• Republic Health Corp. v. Lifemark Hosps. OF Fla., Inc.
  755 F.2d 1453· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 32×
  The district court erred in dismissing Republic's complaint as a compulsory counterclaim because the claims did not arise from the same operative facts and the unique relationship between district and bankruptcy courts warranted a different approach.
• WJM, Inc. v. Mass. Dep't OF Pub. Welf.
  840 F.2d 996· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Department of Public Welfare waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by filing proofs of claim in the nursing homes' bankruptcy proceedings, but erred in awarding prejudgment interest as there was no express waiver for interest.
• Asset Allocation & Mgmt. Co. v. W. Emp'rs Ins. Co.
  892 F.2d 566· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-03 ·cited 30×
  The court agrees with the majority's analysis of personal jurisdiction issues.
• Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Milliken & Co.
  690 F.2d 380· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a party cannot profit from its own wrongdoing, and therefore, the plaintiff should not recover royalties paid to Leesona, despite the majority's disposition of other issues.
• Martino v. McDONALD'S Sys., Inc.
  598 F.2d 1079· 7th Cir.· 1979-05-09 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the prior consent judgment, which found the franchise termination justified, had res judicata effect and barred the plaintiffs' subsequent antitrust claim challenging that termination.
• United States v. Eastport S.S. Corp.
  255 F.2d 795· 2d Cir.· 1958-05-06 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the libel on the grounds of voluntary payment and compulsory counterclaim.
• The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Cal. State Bd. OF Equalization
  757 F.2d 1047· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Board's counterclaim against the Tribe is barred by tribal sovereign immunity, and that the California cigarette tax, as applied, impermissibly imposes the tax burden on the Tribe.
• Cheezem Dev. Corp. v. Maddox Roof Serv., Inc.
  362 So. 2d 99· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-08-18 ·cited 28×
  A party who fails to interpose a compulsory counterclaim in a suit that is still pending may bring an independent action on that claim.
• Borror v. Sharon Steel Co.
  327 F.2d 165· 3d Cir.· 1964-01-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the administrator, as a statutory representative with diverse citizenship, has the capacity to sue under Rule 17(a) and that the court has jurisdiction over the wrongful death action, potentially through pendent jurisdiction with the survival action.
• ALL Am. Airways, Inc. v. Elderd
  209 F.2d 247· 2d Cir.· 1954-01-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the order dismissing counterclaims as to "related defendants" and requiring amendment of the answer was not an appealable order.
• Harbor Ins. Co. & Allstate Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Bank Corp.
  922 F.2d 357· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-17 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding the declaratory judgment complaint as evidence and in admitting expert testimony on the meaning of 'indemnity'.
• In re Monongahela RYE Liquors, Inc.
  141 F.2d 864· 3d Cir.· 1944-03-27 ·cited 26×
• Medwin Benjamin v. The United States
  348 F.2d 502· Ct. Cl.· 1965-07-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a side-agreement to defer judgment enforcement and that his claims for missing parts and discounts were either barred by limitations, unsupported by evidence, or contrary to regulations.
• The Petromanagement Corp. v. Acme-Thomas Joint Venture
  835 F.2d 1329· 10th Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that federal law of res judicata applies to diversity actions and that the plaintiff's second lawsuit was barred by claim preclusion because the claims arose from a series of connected transactions that should have been litigated together in the first action.
• Gilldorn Sav. Ass'n v. Commerce Sav. Ass'n
  804 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Illinois district court should have given collateral estoppel effect to the Texas district court's denial of Gilldorn's motion to dismiss, as the compulsory counterclaim issue was actually litigated and necessarily decided.
• Incas & Monterey Printing & Packaging, Ltd. v. M/V Sang JIN
  747 F.2d 958· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-03 ·cited 20×
  An order requiring counter-security for counterclaims of wrongful seizure or abuse of process is not appealable under the Cohen doctrine or as a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because such claims do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original libel.
• Chance v. Cnty. Bd. OF Sch. Trs. OF McHENRY Cnty.
  332 F.2d 971· 7th Cir.· 1964-06-10 ·cited 20×
  The district court's dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction was proper.
• Hasse v. Am. Photograph Corp.
  299 F.2d 666· 10th Cir.· 1962-01-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that service of process under the amended Oklahoma non-resident motorist statute was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the appellant administrator because the amendment was not retroactive, and the appellant's filing of a compulsory cross-complai
• Esquire, Inc. v. Varga Enters., Inc.
  185 F.2d 14· 7th Cir.· 1950-11-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the dismissal with prejudice of a counterclaim barred a subsequent injunction for relief sought in that counterclaim, but affirmed findings of trademark infringement and unfair competition.
• In re PCH Assocs. v. PCH Assocs.
  949 F.2d 585· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-19 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the prior determination that the relationship was a joint venture did not preclude Liona from asserting its interest as a secured creditor, and that Liona holds an equitable mortgage, entitling it to priority.
• Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Little River Bank & Tr. Co. & Rachel Mechlowitz
  228 So. 2d 412· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-11-25 ·cited 17×
  A party waives the right to assert claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence as an opposing party's claim if they fail to file such claims as a compulsory counterclaim.
• Ashbrook v. Block
  917 F.2d 918· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 16×
  A counterclaim brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) against an agency of the United States does not obviate the filing of an administrative claim pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
• Answering Serv., Inc. v. Egan
  728 F.2d 1500· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-28 ·cited 16×
  A claim that has not yet matured does not need to be joined with another claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, and failure to join it does not bar a later suit.
• Warshawsky & Co. v. Arcata Nat'l Corp. & Arcata Graphics Corp.
  552 F.2d 1257· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by vacating an injunction based on extra-record impressions rather than objective record facts, and that the California action constituted a compulsory counterclaim.
• The Liberty Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Okla. City v. Acme Tool Div. OF the Rucker Co.
  540 F.2d 1375· 10th Cir.· 1976-08-12 ·cited 16×
  The Tenth Circuit held that a trial court has jurisdiction to entertain a compulsory counterclaim against a stakeholder in an interpleader action, and that the sale of collateral must be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner as required by the UCC.
• United States for the Use & Benefit of Samuel J. Pickard v. S. Constr. Co., Inc.
  293 F.2d 493· 6th Cir.· 1961-08-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a material breach justifying quantum meruit recovery requires a fundamental breach going to the root of the contract, and that the $35,000 payment was a compulsory counterclaim that should have been raised in the first filed action.
• Maddox v. Ky. Fin. Co., Inc.
  736 F.2d 380· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 12×
• Margurita McCAFFREY v. REX Motor Transp., Inc.
  672 F.2d 246· 1st Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the employer's counterclaim was neither compulsory nor did it fall within federal question jurisdiction, and thus the district court correctly dismissed it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Dindo v. Whitney
  451 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1971-11-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a) may be barred even if the prior action was settled rather than tried to judgment, but a factual determination of the plaintiff's knowledge of the counterclaim is required.
• Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Clark Cnty.
  857 F.2d 606· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 11×
  The court held that Nevada's notice-of-claim statute did not bar Briscoe's claims because they arose from the County's compulsory counterclaim, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding the continuance, jury instructions, evidence charts, or special inter
• Whigham v. Beneficial Fin. Co. OF Fayetteville, Inc.
  599 F.2d 1322· 4th Cir.· 1979-06-20 ·cited 10×
  A lender's claim for the loan balance is not a compulsory counterclaim in a borrower's Truth-in-Lending Act violation suit because it arises from state contract law and involves different facts and evidence.
• Caleshu v. United States
  570 F.2d 711· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-06 ·cited 10×
• NEW & Used Auto Sales, Inc. v. Hansen
  245 F.2d 951· 9th Cir.· 1957-04-30 ·cited 10×
  A summary judgment granted for affirmative relief on an unfiled counterclaim is void, and the trial court cannot use summary judgment procedure to substitute for pleadings and trial.
• Nachtman v. Crucible Steel Co. of Am.
  165 F.2d 997· 3d Cir.· 1948-01-28 ·cited 10×
  An order dismissing a counterclaim on the merits with prejudice cannot be appealed separately if the counterclaim is compulsory under Rule 13(a).
• City OF Cleveland v. The Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co.
  570 F.2d 123· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-16 ·cited 9×
  The court held that CEI's counterclaims for unpaid power and construction costs were compulsory counterclaims within the district court's ancillary jurisdiction, and alternatively, that the district court had jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act.