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

• The Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe OF Okla. v. The Okla. TAX Comm'n
  888 F.2d 1303· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a tribe's filing of a complaint does not waive its sovereign immunity for counterclaims, and that land held in trust for a tribe constitutes Indian Country, exempt from state taxation.
• Carvel Dillard v. Sec. Pac. Brokers, Inc.
  835 F.2d 607· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 8×
  Claims arising from transactions that occurred before the defendant filed their answer in a prior suit are barred by res judicata, but claims arising after the answer date are not.
• Garland Coal & Mining Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  778 F.2d 1297· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that post-expiration grievances are not arbitrable under the contract, but pre-expiration grievances remain arbitrable. The court also reversed the dismissal of the Union's counterclaims and third-party complaint.
• Cavanaugh v. W. Md. Ry. Co. & Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  729 F.2d 289· 4th Cir.· 1984-02-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) does not prohibit a railroad from filing a counterclaim for property damage against an employee suing for personal injuries, as such a counterclaim is not a 'device' to exempt the railroad from liability under the Ac
• Merrill Lynch v. Del Valle
  528 F. Supp. 147· S.D. Fla.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's claims for violations of Section 7 and Regulation T were properly dismissed for lack of an implied private right of action, but other counts alleging fraud and state law claims were not. The court also denied a motion to dismiss based on insuff
• United States v. Aronson
  617 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's claim for responsible officer penalty assessments did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the taxpayers' prior refund suit, and thus was not barred by res judicata.
• Stahl v. Ohio River Co. v. G. M. Crain River Towing
  424 F.2d 52· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-01 ·cited 8×
  A third-party defendant cannot assert a counterclaim for contribution against a co-plaintiff if the claim has not yet matured, but the court may allow amendment of pleadings nunc pro tunc if the plaintiff failed to timely object.
• THE DOW Chem. Co. v. Metlon Corp.
  281 F.2d 292· 4th Cir.· 1960-07-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that venue for patent infringement requires proof of completed acts of infringement within the district, not merely threats or demonstrations insufficient to establish such acts. A defendant does not waive venue by filing a special appearance to contest it, nor is
• Zurn Indus., Inc. v. Acton Constr. Co., Inc.
  847 F.2d 234· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court improperly realigned parties to destroy diversity jurisdiction, as the primary dispute was Zum's claim for extra work, not Garland's claims.
• Pochiro v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  827 F.2d 1246· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Pochiros' claims were compulsory counterclaims to Prudential's prior action and were thus barred by res judicata, and that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend.
• In re Scaife v. Anderson
  825 F.2d 357· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that each monthly renewal of the loan constituted a separate 'transaction' under the Truth in Lending Act, allowing for statutory damages per renewal, and that a possessory interest is sufficient to recover the full value of a converted chattel.
• United States v. Snider
  779 F.2d 1151· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government was not required to file its claim for past Medicare overpayments as a compulsory counterclaim in the prior injunction action, and that collateral estoppel applied to preclude relitigation of the issue of whether the services provided constitute
• Int'l Video Corp. v. Ampex Corp.
  484 F.2d 634· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are not governed by Rule 41 and that a counterclaim must also be dismissed if the main claim lacks a justiciable controversy.
• Transp. Workers Union OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  413 F.2d 746· 10th Cir.· 1969-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal of the action was not prejudicial error, as the plaintiffs had not sufficiently demonstrated the futility of their administrative remedies under the Railway Labor Act.
• Huntington Palisades Prop. Owners Corp. v. Metro. Fin. Corp. of Cal.
  180 F.2d 132· 9th Cir.· 1950-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the property owners' corporation lacked the authority to modify deed restrictions through a board resolution, and plaintiff was not bound by the attempted changes due to lack of contractual basis or estoppel.
• Fullerton Aircraft Sales & Rentals, Inc. v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
  842 F.2d 717· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on collateral estoppel and lack of privity, reversing and remanding for further proceedings.
• Kern OIL & Ref. Co. v. Tenneco OIL Co.
  792 F.2d 1380· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Kern Oil's payments were made under a mistake of fact, Tenneco waived Kern Oil's breach, and the dismissal of Tenneco's counterclaim was proper due to forum shopping.
• United States v. Finn
  239 F.2d 679· 9th Cir.· 1956-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the Finns' counterclaim because the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity, and that the district court erred in granting affirmative relief to defendants who had not properly filed counterclaims or cros
• Talley v. United States
  990 F.2d 695· 1st Cir.· 1993-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court misconstrued a request for admission and that the government should be allowed to assert its counterclaim on remand.
• Park Club, Inc. v. Resolution Tr. Corp.
  967 F.2d 1053· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the bank's board of directors approved the permanent loan commitment, and that the plaintiffs' jury demand should not have been struck.
• Laszlo Adam v. Eli S. Jacobs
  950 F.2d 89· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by addressing the merits of the guarantee claim without first determining if the action should have been brought as a compulsory counterclaim in a prior, related lawsuit.
• Unique Concepts v. Manuel
  930 F.2d 573· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-23 ·cited 2×
  Appeals from a final judgment based in part on patent claims lie with the Federal Circuit, even if other claims have independent jurisdiction.
• Tullos v. Parks
  915 F.2d 1192· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised ancillary jurisdiction over the defendant's state law counterclaims because they were compulsory counterclaims arising from the same transaction as the plaintiff's federal securities law claims.
• Springs v. First Nat'l Bank OF CUT Bank
  835 F.2d 1293· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 2×
  A party is barred from asserting claims that could have been brought as compulsory counterclaims in a prior action, and res judicata bars claims that could have been asserted in a prior proceeding.
• Shavers v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
  834 F.2d 970· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial courts did not commit reversible error in their rulings regarding res judicata, compulsory counterclaims, and damages assessment in the consolidated cases.
• Chahram Pahlavi v. Petros Palandjian
  809 F.2d 938· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Palandjian's counterclaims were time-barred and not compulsory, and that Pahlavi was entitled to summary judgment on his claim regarding the dishonored check, with pre-judgment interest awarded from the date of dishonor.
• Ponderosa Dev. Corp. v. Delbert M. Bjordahl
  787 F.2d 533· 10th Cir.· 1986-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the result reached by the majority, but wrote specially to express concerns about the procedural handling of the case.
• Lore K. COX and Lore K. Cox v. Mountell Miles and Raymond Kurian
  420 F.2d 279· 3d Cir.· 1969-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Cox estate's claims were not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, while Mrs. Cox's individual claims were properly denied summary judgment.
• The Kissell Co. v. Farley
  417 F.2d 1180· 7th Cir.· 1969-11-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the defendant's counterclaim as compulsory and that its findings on the defendant's cross-claim were clearly erroneous, requiring reversal.
• Grant v. United States
  289 F. Supp. 2d 1361· S.D. Fla.· 2003-07-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the IRS's termination of the installment agreement and levying of social security benefits may constitute unauthorized collection actions, but claims related to the filing of a prior tax case, specific performance, and return of levied property are dismissed.
• Puff 'N Stuff of Winter Park, Inc. v. Fed. Tr. Bank
  945 F. Supp. 1523· M.D. Fla.· 1996-11-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' RICO claim was barred by claim preclusion and Florida's compulsory counterclaim rule because it arose from the same operative facts as claims previously litigated and decided in state court foreclosure actions.
• Costello v. Providers Fid. Life Ins. Co.
  958 F.2d 836· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-11 ·cited 1×
  The court held that summary judgment was prematurely granted before the defendant had adequate opportunity for discovery and that the defendant should be allowed to amend its pleadings to assert a compulsory counterclaim.
• Noshirvan v. Couture
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-15
  The court held that a failure to plead compulsory counterclaims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a) does not divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied the alternative motion for summary judgment and Rule 11 sanctions.
• Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Ternisky
  999 F.2d 791· 4th Cir.· 1993-07-27
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment for Mellon, holding that Mellon was a holder in due course and thus not subject to Ternisky's fraud defense.
• In re Rebel Coal Co., Inc. v. United States
  944 F.2d 320· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-23
  The court held that the bankrupt estate's claim to recover a preferential transfer was not a compulsory counterclaim to the United States' claim for civil fines, thus not waiving sovereign immunity under § 106(a).
• Scott v. Long Island Sav. Bank, FSB
  937 F.2d 738· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-21
  The court held that the district court erred in ruling on a state law claim not properly before it, but affirmed the dismissal of the federal TILA claim and the state law counterclaims.
• Frank M. McDERMOTT, Ltd. v. Moretz
  898 F.2d 418· 4th Cir.· 1990-03-12
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the answer to assert a fraud counterclaim without providing a reason.
• Florhline A. Painter v. Harvey
  863 F.2d 329· 4th Cir.· 1988-12-19
  A state law defamation counterclaim arising from the same transaction or occurrence as a federal civil rights claim is a compulsory counterclaim, subject to the federal court's ancillary jurisdiction.
• Int'l Surplus Lines Ins. v. City of Crystal River
  418 F.2d 1300· M.D. Fla.· 1987-12-14
  The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the entire action, including the City's counterclaim against Consolidated, based on ancillary jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim.