Guaranty Trust Co. V. York

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

• Lundgren v. McDANIEL
  814 F.2d 600· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-13 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the deputies' use of deadly force was an unreasonable seizure violating the Fourth Amendment, and that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the suit against them in their individual capacities. The court also held that federal procedural law, not Florida law, go
• Gulf OIL Corp. v. Bivins
  276 F.2d 753· 5th Cir.· 1960-04-01 ·cited 59×
  The court held that an owner or occupier of property has a duty to warn employees of an independent contractor of hidden dangers, and this duty is discharged if those in charge of the work for the contractor are given warning or have knowledge of the danger.
• Ellis v. Great Sw. Corp.
  646 F.2d 1099· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-05 ·cited 54×
  The court held that when a case is transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or § 1404(a) due to lack of personal jurisdiction in the transferor court, the transferee court must apply the choice of law rules of the state in which it sits.
• Witherow v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  530 F.2d 160· 3d Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 49×
  A federal court cannot cure defective service of process on removal if the action was time-barred in state court, as removal jurisdiction is derivative and cannot revive a legally dead claim.
• VON Brimer v. Whirlpool Corp.
  536 F.2d 838· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-24 ·cited 36×
  A proprietary interest in a patent is necessary for claims of intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective business advantage, but not for malicious prosecution. Evidence excluded due to discovery violations was proper.
• Atkins v. Schmutz Mfg. Co.
  435 F.2d 527· 4th Cir.· 1970-12-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Virginia statute of limitations did not bar the plaintiff's suit because it was a continuation of a timely filed Kentucky action.
• Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
  615 F.2d 606· 4th Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 35×
  The court held that North Carolina law, which requires qualification as a personal representative and filing of a complaint within two years for wrongful death actions, should be applied in federal court, making the action time-barred.
• Ciccarelli v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.
  757 F.2d 548· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the discovery rule does not apply to toll the statutes of limitation at issue, the doctrine of estoppel might, but the plaintiffs' offer of proof was insufficient to establish estoppel.
• Sylvestri v. The Warner & Swasey Co., Inc.
  398 F.2d 598· 2d Cir.· 1968-06-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the federal rule for commencement of an action (Rule 3, Fed.R.Civ.P.) applies to the statute of limitations in diversity cases, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings of breach of express warranty and negligence.
• Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Sys., Inc.
  554 F.2d 1165· D.C. Cir.· 1977-03-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the question of whether a statute of limitations was suspended during the pendency of a motion to intervene is a matter of state law, and certified this question to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
• Mary Ann Reid (No. 84-1189) v. Sears
  790 F.2d 453· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 29×
  The court did not explicitly state a holding in this concurring/dissenting opinion, but the author believes the lower court erred in summarily rejecting the plaintiff's claim.
• Groninger v. Merrill E. Davison
  364 F.2d 638· 8th Cir.· 1966-08-26 ·cited 24×
  A federal court in a diversity action must apply state law to determine when an action is commenced for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations, even if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a different method for commencement.
• Tr. Co. of Chicago v. Pa. R. Co.
  183 F.2d 640· 7th Cir.· 1950-07-03 ·cited 22×
  A federal court in a diversity case must apply the same limitations on a cause of action as the state court would, including statutory bars to suit.
• Hayden v. Ford Motor Co.
  497 F.2d 1292· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to plead it in a timely manner, and thus the district court's summary judgment based on that defense must be reversed.
• Zimmerman v. Mathews Trucking Corp.
  203 F.2d 864· 8th Cir.· 1953-04-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a federal court's judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict must align with state court decisions on similar facts and law, especially when applying state law.
• D'Onofrio Constr. Co., Inc. v. Recon Co., Inc.
  255 F.2d 904· 1st Cir.· 1958-05-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that allowing a third-party defendant to be impleaded for contribution before payment of the common liability is a procedural matter governed by federal rules, not a substantive right dictated by state law.
• Gillen v. Phoenix Indem. Co.
  198 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1952-06-24 ·cited 18×
  A federal court jury instruction directing the jury to consider state court damage awards in similar cases as a guide for their own award is erroneous.
• Riley v. Union Pac. R. Co.
  177 F.2d 673· 7th Cir.· 1949-10-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motion to transfer the case and in dismissing the complaint.
• Jane Doe 8 v. Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc.
  48 F.4th 1202· 11th Cir.· 2022-09-08 ·cited 15×
  A group of Colombian victims and family members of victims killed by a paramilitary terrorist organization that Chiquita Brands International funded challenged the dismissal of their Colombian law claims as time-barred under Colombia's ten-year statute of limitations, arguing the
• Averbach v. Rival Mfg. Co.
  809 F.2d 1016· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff's complaint alleging common law fraud in discovery responses, filed as an independent action, should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage, and that the one-year time limit for Rule 60(b)(3) motions does not apply to such independent action
• Prashar v. Volkswagen OF Am., Inc.
  480 F.2d 947· 8th Cir.· 1973-06-27 ·cited 12×
  Compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, which allows commencement of an action by filing a complaint, tolls the statute of limitations in diversity cases, even if state law requires service of process for commencement, unless the state's commencement statute is an inte
• Doggrell v. S. Box Co.
  208 F.2d 310· 6th Cir.· 1953-12-01 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would adhere to the prior decision of the court and deny the petition for rehearing.
• Collins v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co. OF ST. Louis
  230 F.2d 416· 2d Cir.· 1956-02-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds was improper and that the Louisiana direct action statute is enforceable in a federal court in New York.
• Holmberg v. Armbrecht
  150 F.2d 829· 2d Cir.· 1945-07-13 ·cited 8×
  Federal courts must apply state statutes of limitations to federally created equitable rights, even when enforcing federal statutes, to ensure uniformity and prevent forum shopping.
• Irwin M. Brown v. Pyle
  310 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1962-11-16 ·cited 7×
  A federal court has jurisdiction over a suit arising from an automobile collision in the forum state, but venue is controlled by federal statute, not state nonresident motorist statutes.
• Laird v. United Shipyards, Inc.
  163 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1947-08-13 ·cited 7×
  The New York statute of limitations bars the suit because the alleged cause of action accrued no later than February 28, 1929, and the statute had run before the suit was filed.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Riggs
  671 F.2d 810· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's technical error in substituting the subrogated insurer as the sole plaintiff was harmless and that federal procedural rules, not conflicting state law, govern joinder in diversity cases.
• Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.
  592 F.2d 1133· 10th Cir.· 1979-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Oklahoma statute of limitations, which requires timely service of process in addition to filing, governs the commencement of a diversity action, even though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 only requires filing.
• Higinio Aponte v. Am. Sur. Co. OF NEW York
  276 F.2d 678· 1st Cir.· 1960-04-08 ·cited 6×
  A federal court in a diversity action must apply Puerto Rico law, which allows a direct action against an insurer without first obtaining a judgment against the insured, even if the policy contains a 'no action' clause.
• Mayer v. Chase Nat'l Bank OF the City OF NEW York under a certain agreement made on September 1
  233 F.2d 468· 2d Cir.· 1956-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trust indenture's terms, as interpreted by New York law, do not permit the distribution of unclaimed bondholder shares to known bondholders.
• Yohannon v. Keene Corp.
  924 F.2d 1255· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-24 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Pennsylvania law, not New Jersey law, governs the calculation of pre-judgment interest in this diversity case. The court affirmed the exclusion of live testimony and the sufficiency of evidence findings, but remanded for recalculation of pre-judgment interest
• Crosson v. Conlee
  745 F.2d 896· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 4×
  A federal court sitting in diversity should decline jurisdiction over a claim against a foreign executor if the claim is barred by the nonclaim statute of the state where the estate is being administered and where all assets are located, rendering any judgment unenforceable.
• Patch v. Playboy Enters., Inc.
  652 F.2d 754· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a libel cause of action originates in the state of first publication for the purpose of applying a borrowing statute, to prevent forum shopping.
• Atwell v. Retail Credit Co.
  431 F.2d 1008· 4th Cir.· 1970-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's libel claim was barred by the Maryland one-year statute of limitations because there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment of the cause of action.
• Harris v. Great S. Life Ins.
  558 F. Supp. 689· M.D. Fla.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 3×
  A stakeholder is barred from seeking interpleader relief after a judgment on the merits has been rendered in favor of one of the claimants against the stakeholder.
• Mullen v. Sears
  887 F.2d 615· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-03
  Removing a suit to federal court does not relieve the plaintiff from complying with state service-of-process requirements integral to the state's statute of limitations, especially when venue was improper in the original state court.