Indispensable Party

1,075 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 32 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Air-Exec, Inc. v. TWO Jacks, Inc.
  584 F.2d 942· 10th Cir.· 1978-08-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that neither the partnership nor the bank were indispensable parties, and a juror's affidavit could not impeach the jury's verdict.
• Marson v. Comisky
  341 So. 2d 1040· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-01-21 ·cited 6×
  A mechanic's lien claim is void if not strictly compliant with statutory notice requirements, and failure to join all indispensable parties renders the complaint defective.
• In re King v. Baer
  482 F.2d 552· 10th Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bankruptcy judge did not abuse discretion in permitting the rejection of executory contracts and that the IRS was not an indispensable party to the rejection hearing.
• United States v. Wood
  466 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the Government's failure to join indispensable parties prevents it from quieting title to an easement, it is still entitled to affirmative relief, including injunction and damages, to protect its possessory rights over the road. The court also found that
• Tessier v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
  458 F.2d 1299· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-01 ·cited 6×
  A federal court in a diversity action cannot create a direct cause of action against an insurer where state law requires a judgment against the insured first.
• United Bonding Ins. Co. v. State
  242 So. 2d 140· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-12-29 ·cited 6×
  United Bonding Insurance Company and its surety agents appealed the trial court's denial of motions to set aside bond forfeiture and direct remission after a murder defendant failed to appear. The appellate court reversed, holding that diligent efforts by bondsmen to produce the
• Blake Constr. Co., Inc. v. Am. Vocational Ass'n, Inc.
  419 F.2d 308· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-30 ·cited 6×
  A suit seeking to impress a trust on funds paid by the United States, even if initiated against private parties, is a suit against the United States and barred by sovereign immunity if the United States is an indispensable party that has not consented to be sued.
• Serrano v. Playa Assocs., Inc.
  390 F.2d 593· 1st Cir.· 1968-03-07 ·cited 6×
  An order staying proceedings in a district court is not typically an appealable interlocutory decision, and the appellant failed to make an exceptional showing to warrant treating the appeal as a petition for mandamus.
• United States ex rel. Santiago DeFILLO v. Fitzpatrick
  378 F.2d 85· 2d Cir.· 1967-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the relator's detention as a parole violator was lawful, and the denial of his habeas corpus petition was proper.
• Sivelle v. Maloof
  373 F.2d 520· 1st Cir.· 1967-03-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's appeal for inadequate damages was frivolous and the defendant's appeal lacked merit regarding indispensable parties, general damages, and the default judgment.
• Lewis v. Lewis
  358 F.2d 495· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the corporations were indispensable parties and that diversity jurisdiction was lacking as to them, requiring dismissal of claims against them.
• Kuchenig v. The Cal. Co.
  350 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1965-07-12 ·cited 6×
  The State of Louisiana is an indispensable party to a petitory action seeking a declaration of ownership of navigable water bottoms, and such an action cannot proceed without the State's joinder.
• Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe OF Indians v. United States & Peter Hiatt
  338 F.2d 906· 8th Cir.· 1964-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The Tribe was not an indispensable party to the condemnation action, and its claims are barred by res judicata due to its failure to appeal the denial of its motion to intervene.
• Tardan v. Cal. OIL Co. & Dulac Cypress Co.
  323 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1963-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the entire complaints for failure to join indispensable parties, as personal judgments could be rendered without them, and some absent parties were not indispensable.
• Duncan Miller v. Udall
  307 F.2d 676· D.C. Cir.· 1962-07-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Interior and the lessees fully complied with the letter of the regulations and statute as they existed at the time.
• Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Teas
  286 F.2d 373· 5th Cir.· 1961-01-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 'variable participating royalties' (net profits) constituted a 'bonus' under the contract, entitling plaintiffs to a share, but excess royalties above a certain threshold did not.
• Fagan v. Schroeder
  284 F.2d 666· 7th Cir.· 1960-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The Postmaster General is an indispensable party to an action seeking review of his disciplinary decision, and federal district courts (outside D.C.) lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus for reinstatement.
• 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.
• Jewell Turner and Cyrus O. Turner v. Brookshear
  271 F.2d 761· 10th Cir.· 1959-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the mineral deed conveyed specific interests in land, the parties' rights to royalties were governed by the terms of the existing oil and gas lease, which mandated proration based on acreage.
• Reid v. Reid
  269 F.2d 923· 10th Cir.· 1959-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in determining that Don R. Reid was not an indispensable party and that the injunctive relief granted was proper and not impossible to perform.
• Davis v. Trigo Bros. Packing Corp.
  266 F.2d 174· 1st Cir.· 1959-04-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Director of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division was a necessary party, and his absence deprived the district court of jurisdiction.
• Val B. Richman and J. Kent Giles v. Beck
  257 F.2d 575· 10th Cir.· 1958-06-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Interior was an indispensable party because the relief sought required the Secretary to exercise discretionary power over public lands.
• Hans C. Bick, Inc. v. Watson
  253 F.2d 344· D.C. Cir.· 1958-01-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the Commissioner of Patents, and the action should not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or indispensable parties.
• C. G. Ball (Margaret Eliza Ball v. Victor Adding Mach. Co.
  236 F.2d 170· 5th Cir.· 1956-08-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer is the real party in interest and that the trustee and retirement committee are not indispensable parties, allowing the case to proceed with the parties already before the court.
• Whitmore v. Stilwell
  227 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1955-11-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the suit, finding that plaintiffs are entitled to have their admission eligibility determined without racial discrimination and that the college's refusal to admit them based on race is unlawful.
• Hudspeth Cnty. Conservation & Reclamation Dist. NO. 1 v. Robbins
  213 F.2d 425· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against federal officers acting within their statutory authority, even if their actions might be tortious, because such actions are considered those of the sovereign United States, which has not consented to be
• Cha-Toine Hotel Apts. BLDG. Corp. v. Shogren
  204 F.2d 256· 7th Cir.· 1953-05-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for a declaratory judgment because the Director of Rent Stabilization was an indispensable party and the action was premature, seeking initial determination of facts committed to administ
• Baten v. Nona-Fletcher Mineral Co.
  198 F.2d 629· 5th Cir.· 1952-07-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the suit was properly dismissed for lack of indispensable parties, as their joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
• Gauss v. Kirk
  D.D.C.· 1952-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The vendors (Bowens) are not indispensable parties to the purchaser's (Kirk's) action against the agent (Gauss) for the return of a deposit.
• Sadler v. Sadler
  167 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1948-03-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a handwritten agreement created a valid trust, and the trial court had jurisdiction to declare the trust despite absent beneficiaries.
• Tex. & P. RY. Co. v. City of New Orleans
  159 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1947-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the absent corporation was not an indispensable party, and a declaratory judgment could be rendered without affecting its rights.
• Shell Dev. Co. v. Universal OIL Prods. Co.
  157 F.2d 421· 3d Cir.· 1946-09-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the requirements of R.S. Section 4915, including notice to adverse parties and joinder of indispensable parties, are jurisdictional and must be met within the statutory six-month period.
• First Nat. Bank of Holdenville v. Ickes
  154 F.2d 851· D.C. Cir.· 1946-04-01 ·cited 6×
• Petition of Henneman
  137 F.2d 627· 1st Cir.· 1943-08-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while a writ of mandamus can compel a district court to decide issues related to removal, it cannot be used to review a remand order itself, and in this case, the district court's stated view made the writ unnecessary.
• FOX et ux. v. Ickes
  137 F.2d 30· D.C. Cir.· 1943-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that water rights under the Reclamation Act are based on beneficial use, not contract, and the Secretary cannot impose additional charges for water beyond the original fixed construction charge without the consent of a majority of affected water-users.
• City of Orangeburg v. S. Ry. Co.
  134 F.2d 890· 4th Cir.· 1943-04-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the federal court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the property because it first acquired jurisdiction through the removed action, and the lessor was not an indispensable party whose absence would defeat jurisdiction.
• Savage v. Olson
  151 Fla. 241· Fla.· 1942-07-28 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the annulment of a marriage between Hannah Ford Savage and Charles B. Savage, finding that the defendant engaged in fraudulent conduct to marry an elderly woman of severely diminished mental capacity in order to gain control of her $75,000 estat
• Powell v. United States
  123 F.2d 472· 9th Cir.· 1941-11-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the taxpayer met its burden of proving the fair market value of omitted mining claims as of March 1, 1913, and that the Collector of Internal Revenue was an indispensable party to the suit for tax refund.
• Hewitt v. Punta Gorda State Bank
  117 Fla. 126· Fla.· 1934-10-30 ·cited 6×
  This case involves a second appeal concerning a creditor's bill filed to reach assets allegedly fraudulently concealed by a judgment debtor. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended bill, finding it sufficient in substance.
• Perky v. Perky
  116 Fla. 117· Fla.· 1934-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed a motion to dismiss an appeal involving multiple interlocutory orders and a final decree in an equity case. The court held that while an appeal from a final decree taken timely opens interlocutory orders connected to it for review, an order qua
• Century - Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Frantz
  369 So. 3d 739· Fla. 2d DCA· 2023-08-11 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's judgment that third-party tort claimants were indispensable parties in a declaratory judgment action filed by an insurer against its insured. The court held that the governing statute permits, but does not require, such claimants to be
• Cornfeld v. Plaza of the Americas Club
  273 So. 3d 1096· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-05-01 ·cited 5×
  Robert Cornfeld, a shareholder of Plaza of the Americas Club, Inc., appealed the trial court's dismissal of his derivative suit challenging the Club's refusal to sell property and failure to pursue a claim against RK Centers for sewer line damage. The trial court appointed an ind
• Law Off. of Michael B. Brehne, PA v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  268 So. 3d 854· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-03-15 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment for insurance companies, holding they did not impair a law firm's charging lien by disbursing settlement funds to the client's new attorney, as the funds were held in trust. This decision clarifies that a lien is not impaired if the
• City OF Miami v. Vill. OF KEY Biscayne
  199 So. 3d 300· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-06-22 ·cited 5×
  The court denied the petition for writ of prohibition regarding the judge's disqualification and dismissed the petition regarding the indispensable party as premature.
• Drouin v. Stuber
  168 So. 3d 305· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-07-01 ·cited 5×
  A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's decision to vacate a 2011 paternity judgment that established Jordan Drouin as the biological father of a child born during the mother's intact marriage to another man. The court held that the mother lacked standing to challenge
• Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co.
  159 So. 3d 863· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-12-31 ·cited 5×
  The court held that it would not grant second-tier certiorari review because the appellate division did not violate clearly established law or procedure, despite potential disagreement with the county court's ruling.
• Highwoods DLF Eola, LLC v. Condo Developer, LLC
  51 So. 3d 570· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-12-23 ·cited 5×
  Highwoods appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to intervene in a certiorari proceeding challenging a zoning decision that approved Highwoods' master plan amendment. The Fifth District reversed, holding that Highwoods, as a party to the underlying quasi-judicial proceedi
• Crescenze v. Bothe
  4 So. 3d 31· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-02-04 ·cited 5×
  Cynthia Crescenze, a beneficiary of the Bothe Family Revocable Trust, appealed the denial of her motion to intervene in a suit to terminate the trust. The court reversed, holding that beneficiaries are indispensable parties to trust termination proceedings and cannot be barred fr
• Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Aventura Eng'g & Const.
  534 F. Supp. 2d 1290· S.D. Fla.· 2008-01-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was entitled to summary judgment, a judicial declaration of its right to settle Aventura's claim, monetary judgment for losses, and specific performance requiring collateral posting.
• Legion Ins. Co. v. Moore
  846 So. 2d 1183· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-05-14 ·cited 5×·via Necessary And Indispensable Parties
  Legion Insurance Company appealed the trial court's order striking its declaratory judgment action regarding UM coverage for an accident in which the insured driver died. The court affirmed, holding that where a first-party UM claim involves a disputed factual issue about whether