Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 19

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

• Metropolis Theatre Co. v. Barkhausen
  170 F.2d 481· 7th Cir.· 1948-11-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the lessors of an adjoining parcel were indispensable parties whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction, thus affirming the dismissal of the case.
• Greenleaf v. Safeway Trails, Inc.
  140 F.2d 889· 2d Cir.· 1944-02-07 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in dismissing the action for want of jurisdiction based on the non-joinder of a joint obligor, and that the condition precedent of an audit was waived.
• Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n
  859 F.2d 842· 10th Cir.· 1988-10-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking due to the lack of complete diversity, as USAA, an unincorporated association, is a citizen of every state in which its members reside. The court remanded the case to the district court to consider dismissing nondiverse
• Rochester Methodist Hosp. v. The Travelers Ins. Co.
  728 F.2d 1006· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a statement made in 1977 constituted fraudulent misrepresentation, but a statement made in 1972 did not, due to lack of justifiable reliance.
• Dolch v. United Cal. Bank
  702 F.2d 178· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a claim challenging the validity of a copyright assignment for lack of consideration arises under state contract law, not federal copyright law, and thus does not establish federal question jurisdiction. Furthermore, realignment of a party whose interests alig
• Bio-Analytical Servs., Inc. v. The Edgewater Hosp., Inc.
  565 F.2d 450· 7th Cir.· 1977-10-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Dr. Mark was not an indispensable party and that principles of comity did not preclude federal jurisdiction due to a pending state court action.
• Tankersley v. Albright
  514 F.2d 956· 7th Cir.· 1975-03-20 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would affirm all summary judgments entered by the district court.
• Moore v. Knowles
  482 F.2d 1069· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the school board's initial suspension of a teacher pending criminal indictments did not violate due process, but remanded for a hearing on whether the teacher had a property interest in continued employment under new legal standards.
• Mrs. Francies Morrison v. NEW Orleans Pub. Serv. Inc.
  415 F.2d 419· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for nonjoinder of indispensable parties, as their joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction and Louisiana law prohibits splitting wrongful death claims.
• Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity
  910 F.2d 555· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the absent tribes were not necessary parties to the Makah's procedural claims challenging the regulatory process, but were indispensable parties to claims seeking reallocation of the 1987 harvest.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Condit
  861 F.2d 853· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-15 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellants' motion to join the FDIC as Receiver, as the appellants had waived their right to do so by failing to oppose the substitution of the FDIC as Corporate earlier.
• Pickle v. Int'l Oilfield Divers, Inc.
  791 F.2d 1237· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that prejudgment interest should not be awarded on future damages, and that the structuring of reimbursements to insurers requires further consideration by the district court.
• In re Precision Screen Machs., Inc.
  729 F.2d 1428· Fed. Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus would not be issued because there was no clear demonstration of abuse of discretion by the district court or frustration of appellate jurisdiction.
• DiGREGORIO v. First Rediscount Corp.
  506 F.2d 781· 3d Cir.· 1974-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice without a sufficient finding of willfulness, bad faith, or fault, as required by Rule 37(b)(2)(C) and Supreme Court precedent.
• Pub. Serv. Co. OF Okla. v. Black & Veatch
  467 F.2d 1143· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-17 ·cited 14×
  Where an insured suffers a partial loss and has been partially reimbursed by an insurer, the insurer should be joined as a party plaintiff upon motion by the tort-feasor, consistent with established federal precedent.
• Janis v. Dick Wilson
  521 F.2d 724· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-13 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in reaching the merits of the case without first determining if the appellants had exhausted their tribal remedies.
• Fla. Software Sys., Inc. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.
  46 F. Supp. 2d 1276· M.D. Fla.· 1999-04-19 ·cited 12×
  The court denied motions to dismiss most counts, finding the pleadings sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, but granted the motion to dismiss the claim for accounting.
• Lucile Hansen v. Peoples Bank OF Bloomington
  594 F.2d 1149· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction after requiring joinder of the non-diverse remaindermen as indispensable parties under Rule 19.
• Eikel v. States Marine Lines, Inc.
  473 F.2d 959· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 12×
  A party joined under Rule 19 as a defendant, but whose interests align with the plaintiff for diversity purposes, must be realigned as a plaintiff to preserve diversity jurisdiction.
• Benson v. United States
  421 F.2d 515· 9th Cir.· 1970-01-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the dismissal proceeding was in substantial compliance with required procedures, and affirmed the district court's decision as modified regarding personal jurisdiction.
• United States v. Cnty. OF Arlington
  669 F.2d 925· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the 1979 agreement granting reciprocal tax exemption to the GDR's property was valid and that the property was immune from execution of pre-May 4, 1979 tax liens. The court also held that the United States was not collaterally estopped by a prior judgment agai
• Kaiser v. Local NO. 83
  577 F.2d 642· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 11×
  The employer is not an indispensable party in an action against a union for breach of its duty of fair representation, and a union can be liable even if the employer is not.
• McCLENDON v. United States
  885 F.2d 627· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Tribe did not waive its sovereign immunity by initiating the 1972 suit, and the lease agreement did not contain an express waiver, thus the action against the Tribe was barred. Furthermore, the Tribe is an indispensable party, requiring dismissal of the ac
• Pearce v. Se. Banking Corp.
  54 F.R.D. 486· S.D. Fla.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 10×
• Young C. Park v. Didden
  695 F.2d 626· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 10×
  A district court must conduct a careful, practical analysis under Rule 19 before dismissing an action for failure to join parties, and cannot dismiss based on conclusory labels like 'necessary' or 'indispensable' without such analysis.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Ball Corp.
  661 F.2d 531· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that statistical evidence, buttressed by anecdotal proof of discouraged applications, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment regarding promotions and transfers, reversing the district court's dismissal. However, the court affirmed the
• Weisberg v. U. S. Dep't OF Just.
  631 F.2d 824· D.C. Cir.· 1980-06-05 ·cited 10×
  The mere existence of copyright does not automatically exempt agency records from FOIA disclosure, but the case must be remanded to join the copyright owner due to the risk of inconsistent obligations for the government.
• Consumers Union OF the United States, Inc. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n
  561 F.2d 349· D.C. Cir.· 1977-07-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a prior preliminary injunction in a separate action did not preclude the current FOIA lawsuit because the prior injunction was interlocutory and the case was effectively closed out.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
  518 F.2d 292· 10th Cir.· 1975-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Garton was not an indispensable party and that the "other insurance" clauses, after eliminating mutually repugnant escape clauses, established State Farm as an excess carrier and Mid-Continent as a primary carrier.
• Patterson v. Ellis C. MacDOUGALL
  506 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se complaint sua sponte, as it stated a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that dismissal for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19(b) was improper.
• Window Glass Cutters League of Am. v. Am. ST. Gobain Corp.
  428 F.2d 353· 3d Cir.· 1970-07-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court correctly ordered the joinder of another union as a necessary party under Rule 19, and properly dismissed the action when the plaintiff failed to join the party.
• Janousek v. Wells
  303 F.2d 118· 8th Cir.· 1962-05-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying intervention, denying the motion to add a party defendant, and dismissing the action for failure to prosecute.
• Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Buford Rollin
  119 F.4th 881· 11th Cir.· 2024-10-11 ·cited 9×
  The district court erred by failing to analyze sovereign immunity on a claim-by-claim basis for the Poarch officials. The court vacates the dismissal and remands for further proceedings, allowing for amendment of the complaint.
• Melancon v. Texaco, Inc.
  659 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 9×
  The court held that orders denying remand and vacating a joinder order are interlocutory and therefore not appealable.
• Evergreen Park Nursing & Convalescent Home, Inc. v. Am. Equitable Assurance Co.
  417 F.2d 1113· 7th Cir.· 1969-11-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the diversity action for failure to join indispensable parties, as proceeding without them would be inequitable.
• Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG & Vaupel N. Am. v. Meccanica Euro Italia S.P.A. & Am. Trim Prods., Inc.
  944 F.2d 870· Fed. Cir.· 1991-09-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the agreements transferred all substantial rights in the patent, granting Vaupel standing to sue for infringement without joining the patentee. The court also held that Vaupel's delay in filing suit was excused by ongoing reissue proceedings and subsequent pro
• Confederated Tribes OF the Chehalis Indian Reservation v. Lujan
  928 F.2d 1496· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action because the Quinault Indian Nation is an indispensable party that cannot be joined due to sovereign immunity.
• Local 670 v. Int'l Union
  822 F.2d 613· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the grievance is arbitrable, the district court erred in dismissing the case for failure to join Local 703, as it was not an indispensable party under Rule 19.
• Benjamin v. Malcolm
  803 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal courts from issuing injunctive relief against state officials when necessary to remedy violations of federal constitutional rights, even if state law is also implicated.
• Bardomiano Aguilar & Rosa Aguilar v. LOS Angeles Cnty.
  751 F.2d 1089· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a minor child's potential collateral estoppel from a prior action, even if based on distinct causes of action, constitutes a sufficient 'interest' under Rule 19(a)(2) to require joinder if feasible, and dismissal under Rule 19(b) is appropriate if joinder woul
• In re Midwest Milk Monopolization Litig. State of Ill. v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.
  730 F.2d 528· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that indirect purchasers cannot recover damages under the Clayton Act if the alleged coconspirator middlemen are not joined as parties, due to the risk of duplicitous liability.
• Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth
  731 F.2d 1348· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 8×
  The sale of 100 percent of the stock of a closely-held corporation is not a transaction involving a "security" under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 when the purchaser gains control of the business.
• Civil Aeronautics Bd. v. Tour Travel Enters., Inc.
  605 F.2d 998· 7th Cir.· 1979-09-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that absent claimants must be notified and given an opportunity to be heard before priorities for disbursing funds from an escrow account are established.
• Wright v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Altus
  483 F.2d 73· 10th Cir.· 1973-07-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action based on the absence of a 'necessary' party without conducting the required 'equity and good conscience' analysis under Rule 19(b).
• McARTHUR v. Rosenbaum Co. of Pittsburgh
  180 F.2d 617· 3d Cir.· 1950-03-07 ·cited 8×
  A lease clause granting a 'first refusal' to make a new lease is unenforceable if it is too ambiguous to determine the parties' intent or the specific terms of the offer.
• Gholston v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Montgomery
  818 F.2d 776· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-09 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Montgomery Housing Authority's tenant selection policy, which gave an absolute preference to higher-income tenants over those qualifying for statutory preferences, violated federal law.
• Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n v. Dolphin Stadium Corp.
  801 F. Supp. 684· S.D. Fla.· 1992-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that homeowner associations have standing for injunctive relief but not compensatory damages, and denied motions to dismiss based on indispensable parties and Eleventh Amendment immunity, while granting in part motions to strike allegations previously adjudicated.
• State OF S.D. v. Bourland
  949 F.2d 984· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Tribe's treaty-based right to regulate non-Indian hunting and fishing on land conveyed for the Oahe Dam project has not been abrogated by Congress. However, the court vacated the district court's ruling on tribal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians as it w
• Moore v. Comfed Sav. Bank
  908 F.2d 834· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the joinder of appellant banks as defendants was proper under Rule 20 and that genuine issues of fact existed regarding the usury claims, precluding summary judgment.
• Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Haskell Burke
  897 F.2d 734· 4th Cir.· 1990-03-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied Nationwide's motions to stay state proceedings and impose sanctions, and that the declaratory judgment action and intervention motion were moot due to intervening events, requiring remand for dismissal.