Forum Non Conveniens

1,213 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Marshall v. Upson
  343 So. 2d 648· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-03-01
  The court held that venue was proper in Dade County because the cause of action accrued and payment was to be made there, and the defendant failed to meet his burden to establish the absence of venue.
• Warren Bros. Co. v. Joslin
  338 So. 2d 855· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-04-27
  Warren Brothers Company and Ashland Oil, Inc. appealed an order vacating a transfer of venue from Dade County to Lee County in a personal injury case. The court affirmed, holding that Dade County was a proper forum because Ashland Oil maintained an office there, and the trial jud
• Chothen v. Dep't of Transp.
  43 Fla. Supp. 46· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1975-08-29
  The Dade County Circuit Court denied the Department of Transportation's motion to dismiss a tort action for improper venue, holding that even though the state agency's headquarters are in Leon County, venue is properly laid in Dade County where the tort—a traffic accident—occurre
• Geegee M. Morgan v. Ande
  313 So. 2d 86· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-05-09
  This case addresses whether a trial court may dismiss a petition to modify a Florida divorce decree based on the forum non conveniens doctrine when both the original decree and the modification action involve a Florida court. The court holds that forum non conveniens dismissal is
• Flota Mercante Gran Centroamericana v. Stena Shipping AB
  294 So. 2d 98· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-04-02
  Florida appellate court reversed denial of forum non conveniens dismissal where two foreign corporations sued over a contract made in Guatemala to be performed in Sweden, with no connection to Florida.
• Campaneria v. Confederation Life Ins. Ass'n
  34 Fla. Supp. 9· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1970-05-13
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Secretary's decision denying disability benefits.
• Bell v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  31 Fla. Supp. 129· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1968-11-15
  The court held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens was inapplicable because the defendant corporation resided in Florida and denying access to non-resident plaintiffs would violate constitutional and state public policy protections.
• Autry v. Seaboard Coast Line R. R. Co.
  32 Fla. Supp. 53· Duval Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1968-10-03
  A Florida circuit court dismissed a federal employers' liability action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, finding that Jacksonville was an inconvenient forum because all relevant witnesses, medical records, and evidence were located in South Carolina and North Carolina,
• Mason v. The Ohio River Co.
  373 F.2d 69· 6th Cir.· 1967-02-20
  The court held that plaintiffs in admiralty proceedings, before trial and without accrued rights to the respondent, have a right to voluntarily dismiss their suits.
• Farnsworth & Chambers Co., Inc. v. Phinney
  297 F.2d 681· 5th Cir.· 1962-01-08
  A suit against a District Director of Internal Revenue is not the same action as a suit against the United States for tax refund purposes under the forum non conveniens statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• Jorge v. Antonio Co.
  19 Fla. Supp. 101· Hillsborough Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1961-11-28
  A Cuban corporation and its shareholder sued Florida cigar manufacturers for payment of tobacco sales, after Cuba seized and intervened the Cuban corporation. The court dismissed the case under the doctrine that courts will not sit in judgment on sovereign governmental acts withi
• Saunders P. Lemon v. Honorable John H. Druffel
  253 F.2d 680· 6th Cir.· 1958-04-01
  A writ of mandamus is not appropriate to review a district court's order transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) unless there is a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.
• Bermot A. v. Dillon
  239 F.2d 953· D.C. Cir.· 1956-12-13
  The court held that a minor shortage in the conveyed land, where not a substantial inducement or essential to the contract's purpose, does not justify rescission of an executed real estate contract. However, an award for out-of-pocket expenses for uncompleted work was affirmed.