Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Rule 38

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

• Hargrove v. Am. Cent. INS. Co.
  125 F.2d 225· 10th Cir.· 1942-01-16 ·cited 48×
  The court held that although the trial court improperly used an advisory jury without a motion after waiver of jury trial, the insured consented to the procedure and was not prejudiced, and the court's findings of fact were supported by sufficient evidence and not clearly erroneo
• Walton v. Eaton Corp.
  563 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-18 ·cited 43×
  The court held that a plaintiff who waives the right to a jury trial in an initial complaint cannot revive that right by filing a second, substantially identical complaint, even if it demands a jury trial and alleges new damages.
• Cram v. SUN Ins. Off., Ltd.
  375 F.2d 670· 4th Cir.· 1967-03-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the appeal was premature and must be dismissed because the district court's order granting summary judgment was not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as it did not resolve all claims and parties and lacked Rule 54(b) certification.
• Moser v. Tex. Trailer Corp.
  623 F.2d 1006· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-11 ·cited 37×
  The court held that admiralty jurisdiction was proper and that the defendants' consent to an amendment alleging admiralty jurisdiction waived their right to a jury trial. However, Texas Trailer's failure to cover openings was not the proximate cause of the injury, and Crescent wa
• Shores v. Ida Murphy and her husband
  88 So. 2d 294· Fla.· 1956-05-09 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment in an ejectment case where the trial judge ordered a jury trial despite neither party having demanded one under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2.1. The Court held that Rule 2.1 is constitutional and that while failure to demand
• Smith v. Cushman Motor Works, Inc.
  178 F.2d 953· 8th Cir.· 1950-01-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellants waived their right to a jury trial by consenting to a bench trial and not objecting to the court's procedure.
• McKINNEY v. Gannett Co., Inc.
  817 F.2d 659· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying the clearly erroneous standard of review because the jury's verdict was advisory, and Gannett was not entitled to a jury trial as of right.
• In re N-500L Cases. Cornhill Ins. Co. Ltd.
  691 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that appellants had a right to a jury trial on the issue of their insured's negligence liability, but waived their right to a jury trial on the issue of proportionate fault among the tortfeasors.
• Irving M. Rosen in Reorganization of Bermec Corp. v. Dick
  639 F.2d 82· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-30 ·cited 20×
  A co-defendant may rely on another party's jury demand only to the extent of the issues embraced by that demand, and not for issues with which the demanding party is unconnected.
• Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc.
  819 F.2d 1120· Fed. Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the patent claims were not invalid and were infringed, but that the infringement was not willful.
• Collins v. Gov't OF the Virgin Islands of the United States
  366 F.2d 279· 3d Cir.· 1966-09-14 ·cited 18×
  A defendant can rely on a co-defendant's timely jury demand when sued jointly and severally for the same injury, and the trial court erred in denying the Government a jury trial under these circumstances.
• Christenson v. Diversified Builders Inc.
  331 F.2d 992· 10th Cir.· 1964-05-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant waived his right to a jury trial on the counterclaim by failing to make a timely demand, and the surety claim, which depended on the counterclaim's adjudication, was therefore also not subject to a jury trial as a matter of right.
• Application of Howard Higgins and Edgar Wrenn v. The Boeing Co.
  526 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court must exercise its discretion to determine if a jury trial should be granted, considering the circumstances and lack of prejudice.
• Charley R. Johnson v. The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York
  238 F.2d 322· 8th Cir.· 1956-11-20 ·cited 14×
  The denial of a jury trial in a declaratory judgment action concerning factual disputes traditionally tried at law constitutes reversible error.
• Abbe v. New York
  171 F.2d 387· 2d Cir.· 1948-11-30 ·cited 14×
  The order denying a motion to transfer a case to the jury calendar after a jury trial was ostensibly waived is an interlocutory order and not immediately appealable.
• Houston N. Hosp. Props. v. Telco Leasing, Inc.
  688 F.2d 408· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the mere appearance of 'jury requested' on a docket cover sheet is insufficient to preserve the right to a jury trial absent compliance with Rule 81(c) or Rule 38, and that even if a jury trial were proper, summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate.
• Verdia Jones v. Birdsong
  679 F.2d 24· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a party waives their right to a jury trial by failing to make a timely written demand as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) and (d).
• Bell v. Cameron Meadows Land Co.
  669 F.2d 1278· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the federal and state securities law claims and common law fraud, requiring reversal of summary judgment on those claims. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' untimely jury demands.
• Kelly v. Shamrock OIL & GAS Corp.
  171 F.2d 909· 5th Cir.· 1948-12-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence presented a jury issue regarding whether the agent was secretly employed by both parties, and the jury's verdict for the defendant was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Williams v. Farmers & Merchs. Ins. Co. & Henry Ins. Agency
  457 F.2d 37· 8th Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the appellants' motion for a jury trial because the appellees' amended answer raised a new issue of 'increase of hazard'.
• Washington v. NEW York City Bd. OF Estimate
  709 F.2d 792· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 10×
  A pro se claimant should not be deemed to waive a jury trial demand without being informed of their constitutional right and the necessity of a written demand.
• Farias v. Bexar Cnty. Bd. OF Trs. FOR Mental Health Mental Retardation Servs.
  925 F.2d 866· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's denial of a jury trial motion was not reviewable because the order was too opaque and failed to demonstrate the exercise of discretion under Rule 39(b).
• Doelle v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel.
  872 F.2d 942· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal rules govern counterclaims in federal diversity cases, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the condemnation counterclaim. However, the court reversed the award of equitable damages for shrubbery due to lack of legal bas
• Filmon Process Corp. v. Hon. John J. Sirica
  379 F.2d 449· D.C. Cir.· 1967-04-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a party is not entitled to a jury trial on a patent infringement claim if no damages action is pending, and that a claim for unfair competition without alleged pecuniary damages does not require a jury trial.
• James v. Pa. Gen. Ins. Co.
  349 F.2d 228· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the insured's right to a jury trial in a declaratory judgment action concerning insurance policy validity was not definitively resolved and requires further determination.
• Franquez v. United States
  604 F.2d 1239· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 6×
• Mrs. Frances Miskell v. S. Food Co., Inc.
  439 F.2d 790· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an untimely jury trial motion and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
• Romero v. Peterson
  930 F.2d 1502· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appeal of Rule 11 sanctions is not yet final, and remanded the case for further factfinding on whether the defendants were acting as federal actors, vacating the district court's determination of federal status.
• Moore v. Dunham
  240 F.2d 198· 10th Cir.· 1956-12-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that failure to file a return receipt under the Nonresident Motorist Act invalidates service, and that substituted service under the Act negates the tolling of the statute of limitations due to the defendant's absence from the state.
• Woodland v. City OF Houston
  940 F.2d 134· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by submitting questions of law regarding privacy interests to the jury and by failing to make independent factual findings, necessitating a remand.
• Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. Timeshare Lawyers, P.A.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-05-17
  A party is not entitled to a jury trial when it seeks only equitable relief, regardless of the underlying cause of action.
• Reviv IP LLC v. Revive Health & Wellness Stuart LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-06-07
  The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to withdraw their jury demand and strike the defendants' jury demand because the remaining claims sought equitable remedies for which there is no federal right to a jury trial.
• Alonso Cano v. 245 C&C, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-03-19
  Contractual jury trial waivers are enforceable in Fair Housing Act claims if knowing and voluntary, and the waiver in the lease agreement was valid.
• Entourage Custom Jets, LLC v. Air One MRO, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-30
  A party's agreement in a joint conference report to a jury trial, coupled with significant delay in objecting, supersedes a prior contractual jury waiver, and such consent cannot be unilaterally revoked based on mistake.
• Kaplan v. Regions Bank
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-25
  Kaplan sued Regions Bank for malicious prosecution, alleging the bank had brought unfounded claims against him in earlier litigation; Regions moved to strike his jury demand based on a jury waiver clause in a deposit agreement that Kaplan had signed when opening accounts. The cou
• McKERSIE v. IU Int'l Corp.
  830 F.2d 88· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-16
  The court held that the appellants' numerous filings constituted an abuse of process and warranted sanctions, and dismissed the pending appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. Coratomic, Inc.
  702 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-17
  The court affirmed the district court's holding that the three patents were invalid for obviousness and that the jurisdictional assertion was proper. The court also affirmed the striking of the jury demand.