Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 22

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

• Mrs. Elsie Haynes v. Felder
  239 F.2d 868· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that minimal diversity among claimants is sufficient for federal jurisdiction under the Interpleader Act, and that the trial court properly granted summary judgment.
• Md. Cas. Co. v. Glassell-Taylor & Robinson
  156 F.2d 519· 5th Cir.· 1946-07-09 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the federal district court erred in dismissing the interpleader complaint, as it stated a valid cause of action under the Interpleader Statute, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Declaratory Judgment Statute, and had jurisdiction over the parties and subjec
• Fulton v. Kaiser Steel Corp. & Coppco, Inc.
  397 F.2d 580· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-28 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to interpleader because they were not exposed to double or multiple liability and could obtain full relief in a pending Colorado suit.
• Wachovia Bank v. Tien
  534 F. Supp. 2d 1267· S.D. Fla.· 2007-08-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment, requiring a trial to determine ownership of the disputed bank accounts.
• Bank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Tr. Co. (two cases)
  209 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1953-12-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Wells Fargo should be relieved of liability for interest on a disputed deposit because the circumstances presented complex legal and factual issues without clear precedent, making it inequitable to penalize the bank.
• United States v. Major OIL Corp.
  583 F.2d 1152· 10th Cir.· 1978-09-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to order the IRS tax refund deposited into the registry as part of the interpleader fund, and that the refund was properly considered part of the interpleader res.
• Dakota Livestock Co. & Farmers Union Mktg. & Processing Ass'n v. Keim
  552 F.2d 1302· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a stakeholder's potential independent liability to a claimant does not preclude federal interpleader jurisdiction, provided there is adversity between claimants and the jurisdictional requirements are met. The court also found that potential claims, not just a
• Schauss v. Metals Depository Corp.
  757 F.2d 649· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) to a party that intentionally avoided proceedings.
• Zylphia L. Powers v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
  439 F.2d 605· D.C. Cir.· 1971-01-20 ·cited 8×
  An insurance company in an interpleader action is not automatically liable for interest on deposited funds, and the award of interest depends on equitable considerations and the specific circumstances of the case. The trial court did not err in discharging the insurer without req
• Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. T & D Cottage Auto Parts & Serv., Inc.
  705 F.2d 685· 3d Cir.· 1983-04-22 ·cited 6×
  Mootness of a complaint after a counterclaim has been filed does not divest the court of ancillary jurisdiction over that counterclaim, provided the counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the complaint.
• Boston OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Balbin
  591 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 6×
  A federal district court may not decline to exercise jurisdiction over an interpleader action simply because a state court action is pending, especially when state certification procedures are available for resolving state law issues.
• Lafayette Corp. v. Bank of Boston Int'l S.
  723 F. Supp. 1461· S.D. Fla.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the issuer of a letter of credit cannot maintain an interpleader action because it is not a disinterested stakeholder and the claims do not involve a single fund.
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  377 F.2d 325· 5th Cir.· 1967-05-04 ·cited 4×
  A federal court's statutory interpleader jurisdiction does not extend to enjoining suits against alleged tortfeasors, even when the insurer deposits policy limits.
• Kurland v. United States
  919 F. Supp. 419· M.D. Fla.· 1996-03-06 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a disinterested stakeholder in an interpleader action may be discharged from liability and enjoined from further action upon depositing disputed funds into the court registry, even if a federal tax lien is involved, provided no improper conduct is alleged.
• Cent. Bank of Tampa v. United States
  838 F. Supp. 564· M.D. Fla.· 1993-11-16 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs due to the priority of a federal tax lien, but granted the plaintiff's request for dismissal from the action upon deposit of the disputed funds.
• Riley T. Kelly and Annette A. Kelly v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.
  709 F.2d 973· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties, in refusing to limit liability based on other insurance proceeds, or in denying the motion to reopen evidence.
• SouthTrust Bank of Fla., N.A. v. Wilson
  971 F. Supp. 539· M.D. Fla.· 1997-07-09 ·cited 1×
  The court granted SouthTrust's motion for interpleader, finding it a disinterested stakeholder, and granted the United States' motion in part, holding that interest on the IRS assessment runs from the date of assessment, not the judgment date.
• NEW York Life Ins. Co. v. Welch
  D.D.C.· 1961-12-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the insurer's doubt regarding the proper recipient of policy proceeds due to potential adverse claims warranted interpleader, and the trial court erred in denying it and granting summary judgment to the beneficiary.
• Securian Life Ins. Co. v. Bonnet
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-24
  The court granted the insurer's motion for interpleader, allowing deposit of funds and discharge of the insurer, but denied the request for an injunction.
• In re Benefits for Primerica Policy Nos. Ending in 2084 & 3112
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-04
  The court granted Primerica's motion for interpleader, allowing it to deposit policy benefits into the court registry and be discharged from liability, but denied its request for an injunction.
• Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Jacobs
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-23
  The court granted Richard G. Jacobs' motion to intervene, finding it timely and that he stated a valid claim. The court denied the Estate's motion to amend its pleadings, finding it untimely and futile due to lack of standing. The court also granted-in-part and denied-in-part Pro
• Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-08-11
  The court granted Primerica's motions, allowing it to interplead the insurance benefit, deduct attorney's fees and costs, and be discharged from liability, while entering default judgment against Xavier Johnson.
• Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Sheehy
  534 F. Supp. 2d 1267· M.D. Fla.· 2022-01-21
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for interpleader, allowing deposit of the insurance proceeds and enjoining further proceedings against the plaintiff.
• The Indep. Order of Foresters v. Cathleen Gold-Fogel
  11th Cir.· 2021-10-20
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by staying the case in favor of parallel state court proceedings, as the core issue involved interpretation of a state-law marital settlement agreement.
• Perez v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-11-13
  The court granted Midland's motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding interpleader, discharging Midland as a party concerning the disputed policy proceeds but denied its request for attorney fees and costs.
• Ashton v. The Josephine BAY Paul & C. Michael Paul Found., Inc.
  918 F.2d 1065· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-16
  The court held that federal statutory interpleader jurisdiction was met and the probate exception did not require abstention, affirming the injunction.
• Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Block
  905 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-23
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from adjudicating support obligations not reduced to final judgment in state court, but could enforce final judgments. Costs were improperly awarded, but post-judgment interest on final judgments was permissible.