559 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 337 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
A district court held that damages for emotional distress are available as compensatory relief in Fair Labor Standards Act retaliation claims, rejecting the defendant's argument that ADEA precedent prohibiting such damages should apply equally to FLSA claims. The court reasoned t
-
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, finding that justice required permitting the amendment. The court determined that the proposed amendments related back to the date of the original filing and that the defendants would not be unduly prejudiced.
-
The court held that Chevron's motion for summary judgment based on res judicata should be granted because the current claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the prior settled action and could have been brought then.
-
1994 WL 874368·
S.D. Fla.·
2003-07-01
The court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, finding that the new evidence presented was insufficient to meet the 'similarly situated' standard required for a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and thus any amendment would be futile.
-
The court denied the defendant's motion for leave to amend its affirmative defenses because the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay.
-
956 F. Supp. 2d 722·
M.D. Fla.·
1999-02-05
The court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and supplement its complaint because the motion was filed after the deadline, lacked good cause, and would cause undue delay and prejudice to the defendants.
-
958 F. Supp. 612·
S.D. Fla.·
1997-03-13
The court held that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether the employer had reasonable suspicion to request a polygraph examination, and thus denied summary judgment for the employer. The court also denied the employee's cross-motion for summary judgment on v
-
Hibernia is precluded from relitigating its entitlement to post-petition interest, attorney's fees, and costs under principles of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).
-
992 F.2d 540·
5th Cir.·
1993-06-04
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, but erred in granting summary judgment on the RICO claims due to the county's failure to meet its initial burden and on the section 1983 claims due to the Supreme Court's rejection of a
-
989 F.2d 187·
5th Cir.·
1993-04-27
The court held that a petitioner is not 'in custody' for purposes of federal habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when challenging a conviction for which the sentence has been completed and which was not used to enhance the conviction for which the petitioner is currently
-
990 F.2d 304·
7th Cir.·
1993-03-30
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of unintentional and isolated negligence in mail handling do not support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
988 F.2d 1013·
10th Cir.·
1993-03-12
The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants based on quasi-judicial immunity for some defendants and collateral estoppel for others, as the prior administrative proceeding met the requirements for preclusion.
-
970 F.2d 348·
7th Cir.·
1992-08-06
The court held that the district court erred in allowing the defendant to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies due to undue delay and prejudice, but affirmed the summary judgment on the merits because the plaintiff faile
-
969 F.2d 1424·
2d Cir.·
1992-07-21
The court held that plaintiff adequately proved product nexus and that the jury's apportionment of liability was supported by the evidence, affirming the district court's judgment.
-
956 F.2d 813·
8th Cir.·
1992-02-11
The court held that the case must be remanded to the district court to determine if the plaintiff should be permitted to amend her complaint and whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.
-
952 F.2d 841·
5th Cir.·
1992-01-15
The court is rehearing the case en banc to reconsider the prior panel decision.
-
948 F.2d 1258·
Fed. Cir.·
1991-11-07
The court held that the Claims Court abused its discretion by allowing the late filing of water claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) due to undue delay and the possibility of earlier amendment.
-
118 F.R.D. 597·
S.D. Fla.·
1991-08-08
The court granted class certification, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) were met, despite arguments regarding individual reliance and the class period.
-
930 F.2d 240·
2d Cir.·
1991-04-11
The court held that a party cannot recover on contracts that are part of a scheme to violate U.S. law, and that a party's knowledge of illegality is imputed from its agent.
-
The court held that New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 205(a) can apply to extend the time for refiling an asbestos personal injury action even if the original suit lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
-
912 F.2d 816·
5th Cir.·
1990-09-26
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint to solely assert diversity jurisdiction, thereby denying him a jury trial.
-
911 F.2d 1111·
5th Cir.·
1990-09-17
The court held that claims concerning sentencing errors are properly brought under § 2255, while post-sentencing errors by the Parole Commission or Bureau of Prisons are properly brought under § 2241. The denial of a motion to amend a habeas petition to add a claim for jail-time
-
907 F.2d 1125·
Fed. Cir.·
1990-06-29
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff's motions to amend and supplement its complaint, as the amendments related back to the original filing and the underlying dispute was not moot.
-
906 F.2d 237·
6th Cir.·
1990-06-26
The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the district court's order granting summary judgment was not a final order due to a pending motion to amend the complaint.
-
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.
-
889 F.2d 543·
5th Cir.·
1989-11-16
The court held that Mr. W's fireworks stand operators are not exempt from the FLSA under the amusement or recreational establishment exemption, and that the district court erred in its calculation of back pay by not fully crediting Mr. W for 'cash advances' taken by operators for
-
869 F.2d 1124·
8th Cir.·
1989-03-14
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the answer to assert a counterclaim, nor in granting summary judgment.
-
861 F.2d 106·
5th Cir.·
1988-11-30
The court held that the FmHA's foreclosure procedures did not violate Boyd's Fifth Amendment due process rights, as he waived his opportunity for a hearing by failing to make a timely written request.
-
821 F.2d 1253·
6th Cir.·
1987-06-30
The court held that the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act insulates a contractor from common law tort liability when the work performed is a regular or recurrent part of the contractor's business, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the defendant
-
823 F.2d 383·
10th Cir.·
1987-06-30
The court held that the district court erred in applying offensive collateral estoppel without considering the law of the state rendering the prior judgment, and that the statute of limitations defense was properly denied due to undue delay.
-
The court held that the district court's findings of sex discrimination were not clearly erroneous, affirming the judgment for the plaintiff.
-
756 F.2d 886·
1st Cir.·
1985-03-07
The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to substitute the real party in interest.
-
719 F.2d 1·
1st Cir.·
1983-10-12
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to give a specific jury instruction on control and in denying the motion to amend the complaint as untimely.
-
631 F.2d 350·
4th Cir.·
1980-10-07
The court held that a party is not entitled to amend their complaint as a matter of right after a judgment of dismissal, even if no responsive pleading was filed.
-
The court held that Capitol should be allowed to file a supplemental pleading to bring its Miller Act claim into compliance, even if the original suit was premature.
-
The court held that the evidence of morphine sulphate did not exceed the bill of particulars and that the defendant's objection to the jury instructions was untimely.
-
330 F.2d 997·
4th Cir.·
1964-04-15
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to change his claimed state of residency after evidence strongly indicated the defendant resided in the same state, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in not allowing the correction of a misnomer in the defendant's name, even after the statute of limitations had run.
-
274 F.2d 447·
9th Cir.·
1959-12-28
The court held that the complaints, particularly the second one, were likely sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under notice pleading standards.
-
256 F.2d 96·
5th Cir.·
1958-06-13
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend, as justice required allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint.
-
The court held that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to establish a lost will, and a prior state court adjudication on the validity of the will is binding on the plaintiff.
-
183 F.2d 694·
10th Cir.·
1950-07-26
The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the defendants' actual damages and in refusing to allow amendment of the pleadings to conform to the evidence presented.