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

• Millard C. Glancy v. First W. Bank
  802 So. 2d 498· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-12-26 ·cited 5×
  Attorney Glancy sued First Western Bank for negligently cashing checks on which he was named as copayee alongside other individuals, alleging conversion under Florida law. The trial court dismissed for failure to join the other copayees as indispensable parties. The appellate cou
• Dimick v. Est. OF Richard K. Barry
  787 So. 2d 198· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-05-16 ·cited 5×
  Michael Dimick and other trustees appealed a probate court order denying their request to extend time to file an independent action against an estate in California under Florida Statute section 733.705(4). The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the probate cou
• The Ivens Corp. v. HOBÉ CIE Ltd.
  555 So. 2d 425· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-12-26 ·cited 5×
  Ivens Corporation appealed a judgment in favor of Hobé Cie Ltd. in a breach of contract action involving the sale and resale of pearl necklaces. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, rejecting Ivens's jurisdictional challenges, its challenge to the lost prof
• Franco Francini and Claudio Menicocci v. Int'l Marble Trades, Inc.
  546 So. 2d 777· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-07-18 ·cited 5×
  Francini and Menicocci challenged personal jurisdiction over them in a derivative shareholder action brought by Quarra against IMT officers. The court reversed, finding that Francini was entitled to nonresident witness immunity when served while attending a deposition in a separa
• Pensacola Junior Coll. v. Montgomery
  539 So. 2d 1153· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-02-28 ·cited 5×
  Pensacola Junior College appealed a judgment reducing a jury verdict against it by the amount of insurance coverage and denying credit for medical payments made. The court reversed, holding that the insurers should have been joined as indispensable parties when determining excess
• Gilbert v. Charles E. Wills, Jr., M.D.
  834 F.2d 935· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction, as the parties collusively created jurisdiction by agreement.
• Gorman Co. OF Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. Frank Maio Gen. Contractor, Inc.
  438 So. 2d 1018· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-10-12 ·cited 5×
  A subcontractor is not an indispensable party to a supplier's action against the contractor and surety on a public construction payment bond, and the inadequacy of appeal due to the subcontractor's bankruptcy justifies certiorari review.
• Amerada Hess Corp. v. Morgan
  426 So. 2d 1122· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-02-03 ·cited 5×
  This appeal addresses whether appellees are entitled to quiet title in an undivided one-eleventh interest in Santa Rosa County land and monetary relief for oil and gas extracted by defendants. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting appellants' arguments regardin
• Greenwald v. Triple D Props., Inc.
  424 So. 2d 185· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-01-05 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a second amended foreclosure complaint was properly dismissed with prejudice because it failed to allege a continuing default after the mortgage reassignment, and the assignment document itself contradicted the general allegations of retained foreclosure right
• Nat'l State Bank OF Elizabeth v. Smith
  591 F.2d 223· 3d Cir.· 1979-01-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a recent amendment to the National Bank Act validated the Comptroller's action in limiting a national bank's operations to trust company business, requiring reversal of the district court's judgment. The court also reinstated claims against other defendants fo
• Abravaya v. Fla. Power & Light Co. (No. 2)
  39 Fla. Supp. 153· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1973-09-26 ·cited 5×·via Necessary And Indispensable Parties
  Plaintiffs sued Florida Power & Light Company for injuries sustained when an automobile driven by Richard Abravaya collided with another vehicle during a power outage that disabled traffic signals. The trial court dismissed the negligence complaint, holding that the utility owed
• Syms v. Castleton Indus., Inc.
  470 F.2d 1078· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-20 ·cited 5×
• The Consol. Gov't OF the City OF Jacksonville v. Adams
  213 So. 2d 34· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-08-01 ·cited 5×
  The Consolidated Government of Jacksonville sought to appeal the trial court's denial of its motions to dismiss and transfer venue in a case involving the Florida Secretary of State. The appellate court found the appeal frivolous and granted the motion to quash the interlocutory
• Jett v. Zink
  362 F.2d 723· 5th Cir.· 1966-06-23 ·cited 5×
  The court held that parties seeking to intervene or be joined as plaintiffs were not indispensable, and that the second suit did not present separate and independent claims for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
• Ames v. Ames
  126 So. 2d 754· Fla. 1st DCA· 1961-01-19 ·cited 5×
  A chancellor lacks jurisdiction to sua sponte vacate provisions of a final divorce decree after it has become final and jurisdiction has terminated, absent proper proceedings.
• Vance v. Am. Soc'y OF Composers
  271 F.2d 204· 8th Cir.· 1959-10-26 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint was proper due to failure to state a claim, lack of jurisdiction over indispensable parties, and improper venue, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Kermes v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.
  327 So. 3d 352· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-07-21 ·cited 4×
  A petition for writ of certiorari challenging a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party lacks jurisdictional basis and must be dismissed, as the remedy must be pursued through postjudgment appeal.
• City OF Miami v. Vill. OF KEY Biscayne & Miami-Dade Cnty.
  197 So. 3d 580· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-05-11 ·cited 4×
  The City of Miami sought a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to rule on its motion to intervene in litigation between the Village of Key Biscayne and Miami-Dade County. The court denied the petition, holding that chapter 164 of the Florida Statutes vests sole discretion in
• Parker v. Parker
  185 So. 3d 616· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-02-03 ·cited 4×
  Appellants, children of a deceased father, challenged the dismissal of their lawsuit seeking to set aside inter vivos property conveyances made by their father 15 days before his death. The trial court dismissed for failure to join the decedent's estate as an indispensable party
• Homeowner's Ass'n OF Overlook, Inc. v. Seabrooke Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc.
  62 So. 3d 667· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the homeowner's association has standing to seek declaratory relief regarding its members' rights and responsibilities for road maintenance under the master declaration and a prior judgment. However, the claims for relief from judgment and invalidity of the pr
• Generation Invs., LLC v. Al-Jumaa, Inc.
  53 So. 3d 372· Fla. 5th DCA· 2011-01-28 ·cited 4×
  Generation Investments, a tenant on a property subject to restrictive covenants, appeals an injunction granted against the property owner Al-Jumaa that effectively restricts Generation's business operations. The court holds that Generation was an indispensable party to the action
• LEE v. Cole
  46 So. 3d 612· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-09-22 ·cited 4×
  Martha Hodgson Lee appealed a summary judgment dismissing her brother Kevin Hodgson from a lawsuit challenging the sale of trust property. Although the trial court's factual findings were sound and summary judgment would have been appropriate on the merits, the Florida appellate
• Wash. Park Props., LLC v. Estrada
  996 So. 2d 892· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of prohibition, holding that a trial court cannot refer motions to a general magistrate filed by parties who were not part of the original referral order without their consent, and cannot expand a referral to cover n
• Immer v. City OF Miami
  898 So. 2d 258· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that mandamus was an inappropriate remedy because there was a disputed factual issue regarding property ownership, and the permit holder was an indispensable party who was not joined.
• Vinnik v. Vinnik
  831 So. 2d 1271· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-12-18 ·cited 4×
  Barbara Vinnik appeals the dismissal and transfer to New York of her complaint against her ex-husband Daniel and his new wife Lora seeking enforcement of a settlement agreement and trust from their 1981 New York divorce. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that
• Murphy v. LEE Cnty.
  763 So. 2d 300· Fla.· 2000-07-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Lee County is authorized to issue revenue bonds to acquire a water system within the Town of Fort Myers Beach, and the Town is not an indispensable party to the validation proceeding.
• Hospitality Ventures OF Coral Springs, L.C. v. Am. Arb. Ass'n Inc.
  755 So. 2d 159· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-03-01 ·cited 4×
  Hospitality Ventures sought to enjoin arbitration proceedings between itself and AGB Construction by suing both AGB Construction and the American Arbitration Association. The trial court improperly entered a default judgment against AAA without proper notice to AGB Construction,
• Allen Damron Constr. Co. v. Mickens
  725 So. 2d 1174· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-12-18 ·cited 4×
  Damron Construction appeals a final judgment on the Mickens' counterclaim that ordered Damron to purchase a replacement residential lot for the Mickens and return their original property. The appellate court reverses because the relief granted was not supported by the pleadings o
• State v. Salch
  673 So. 2d 904· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The Department of Revenue (DOR) is not responsible for paying guardian ad litem fees in a paternity dispute arising from a dissolution action when the father contests paternity and requests blood testing.
• In re C.T.D.
  623 So. 2d 834· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-09-08 ·cited 4×
  This appeal challenges an order denying a motion to amend an uncontested adoption petition. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court never entered a final judgment, making the order denying the motion to amend non-final and nonappealable.
• Goldman v. Medfit Int'l, Inc.
  982 F.2d 686· 1st Cir.· 1993-01-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an unsworn statement signed under penalty of perjury is admissible evidence for summary judgment, personal jurisdiction was properly established, and dismissal of counterclaims and entry of default judgment were not abuses of discretion.
• Bank ONE Tex., N.A. v. A.J. Warehouse, Inc.
  968 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plain language of the credit agreement clearly granted Bank One the right to sue for past-due amounts, and that the Companies' interpretation of section 14.2 was unsupported, thus summary judgment was appropriate. The court also held that discovery was pro
• Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark v. Vento
  586 So. 2d 89· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-09-24 ·cited 4×
  Fireman's Insurance appealed a summary judgment order that rescinded a promissory note and discharged the debtor Vento from liability based on unregistered securities. The court reversed, holding that genuine factual disputes existed regarding whether Fireman's was a securities s
• Loewer v. N.Y. Life Ins.
  773 F. Supp. 1518· M.D. Fla.· 1991-09-20 ·cited 4×·via Necessary And Indispensable Parties
  The court held that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on the statute of limitations should be denied if the complaint, taken as true, does not conclusively show the claim is time-barred, and that a trustee not yet appointed is not an indispensable party.
• Dimuccio v. D'Ambra
  750 F. Supp. 495· M.D. Fla.· 1990-10-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that plaintiffs' claims for declaratory judgment and civil theft failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Curley v. Brignoli
  915 F.2d 81· 2d Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a derivative action could be recharacterized as a class action to preserve diversity jurisdiction, and the limited partnership could be dismissed as a dispensable party.
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Realtors v. Nat'l Real Est. Ass'n, Inc.
  894 F.2d 937· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the majority's analytical approach to diversity jurisdiction, despite pragmatic concerns, is persuasive and correct.
• Faysound Ltd. v. United Coconut Chems., Inc.
  878 F.2d 290· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was lacking because an alien plaintiff cannot sue alien defendants, and the lessees were indispensable parties whose presence destroyed complete diversity.
• Jannis v. Tanner
  533 So. 2d 300· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-11-01 ·cited 4×
  Rita Jannis appealed a judgment in a guardianship estate dispute involving her incapacitated mother, Betty Wyle Tanner. The court vacated the judgment and remanded the case because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, having failed to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the
• Varley v. Tampax, Inc.
  855 F.2d 696· 10th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the entire action for lack of diversity jurisdiction without first dismissing the non-diverse parties, thereby preserving the court's subject matter jurisdiction and giving effect to its prior summary judg
• Shelton v. Exxon Corp.
  843 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that King Ranch was not an indispensable party under Rule 19, and therefore the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Therese U. Donnelly v. United States
  850 F.2d 1313· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Donnellys' claims against the United States were barred by the statute of limitations under the Quiet Title Act, and that claims against Eklutna, Inc. were barred due to the United States' indispensable party status. Claims under ANCSA and constructive tru
• Abel v. Am. ART Analog, Inc.
  838 F.2d 691· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a partnership is dissolved by operation of law when its specific undertaking is completed or when the partners fail to maintain co-ownership of the business, thus precluding a claim for tortious interference with a non-existent partnership.
• Broward Cnty.
  515 So. 2d 1273· Fla.· 1987-09-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that bondholders are not indispensable parties in a bond validation proceeding.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. SUN Island CAR Rentals
  819 F.2d 430· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and correctly interpreted the statute requiring mailed notice of parking tickets and liens to the registered owner.
• Corcoran v. The Fed. Land Bank OF Columbia
  478 So. 2d 1161· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-11-27 ·cited 4×·via Necessary And Indispensable Parties
  A trial court may not dismiss a counter-claim on grounds of pending concurrent federal litigation; instead, a stay is the proper remedy under principles of state-federal comity. However, once appellants were dismissed as parties to the bank's foreclosure cross-claim, any error re
• State v. State
  472 So. 2d 790· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-07-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the mechanic's lien claim and in awarding attorney's fees to the appellee, and that the appellant is entitled to the contract amount plus prejudgment interest.
• Herron v. Keene Corp. & Keene Bldg. Prods. Corp.
  751 F.2d 873· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 4×·via Necessary And Indispensable Parties
  The court held that the issue of whether to stay proceedings against non-bankrupt parties is a procedural matter governed by federal law, not state law.
• Phares v. Harley G. Cowles and Grace D. Cowles
  459 So. 2d 1110· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-11-14 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' claim for a way of necessity for a public road.
• United States v. Kennedy
  738 F.2d 584· 3d Cir.· 1984-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the complaint stated a claim for conversion under federal law, and the district court erred in dismissing it based on state law.