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

• Bastida v. Batchelor
  418 So. 2d 297· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-07-20 ·cited 4×
  Bastida sold shares to defendants with installment payments secured by a return clause. Defendants later assigned the payment contract to Aero Finance as collateral for a loan and defaulted on payments. The trial court granted a directed verdict for defendants on the basis that A
• Woods v. Butter
  418 So. 2d 295· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-07-13 ·cited 4×
  In this property settlement agreement enforcement case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the wife's exceptions to a General Master's Report, holding that a trustee was an indispensable party to the proceeding and that a husband's obligatio
• Carey v. Klutznick
  653 F.2d 732· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court improvidently granted a discovery order compelling the Census Bureau to produce confidential documents and abused its discretion by imposing severe sanctions for non-compliance, necessitating a new trial.
• United States v. Annis
  634 F.2d 1270· 10th Cir.· 1980-11-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that res judicata barred relitigation of tax liability and that foreclosure of a tax lien is an equitable action not requiring a jury trial. However, it remanded for a determination of whether a party claiming to be a trustee was indispensable and required joinder.
• Lopez v. Arraras
  606 F.2d 347· 1st Cir.· 1979-10-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the case must be remanded because of serious doubts concerning the district court's jurisdiction and because HUD is a necessary party for proper resolution.
• Cooper v. Wolkowitz
  375 So. 2d 1099· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-09-18 ·cited 4×
  Cooper homeowners appealed a mortgage foreclosure judgment, arguing they had paid the debt through a cashier's check from a foreign bank and received a satisfaction of mortgage in exchange. The court held that delivery of an uncollected cashier's check from a foreign bank did not
• Alpha Elec. Supply, Inc. v. F. Feaster, Inc.
  358 So. 2d 892· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-05-17 ·cited 4×
  A valid payment bond furnished by the general contractor is a complete defense to a suit on a subsequently filed transfer bond, but this defense must be properly alleged and proven, not raised by a motion to dismiss. Furthermore, the subcontractor is not an indispensable party to
• City OF Pinellas Park v. Matthews
  355 So. 2d 475· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-02-22 ·cited 4×
  The City of Pinellas Park appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action brought by the Matthewses challenging the validity of a 1958 deed. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Matthewses lacked standing to seek declaratory j
• Donald Manter Co., Inc. v. Davis
  543 F.2d 419· 1st Cir.· 1976-11-02 ·cited 4×
  Personal service within a jurisdiction is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant, even if the defendant is not a resident and the business giving rise to the suit is unrelated to the presence.
• In re the Est. of George F. Peck v. van Sweden
  336 So. 2d 1230· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-09-03 ·cited 4×
  In this probate appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an order quashing service of process against an estate executor. The court held that an order to abate proceedings for defective service does not dismiss the underlying petition, and once proper service is effe
• Burlington N. Inc. v. The Am. Ry. Supervisors Ass'n
  527 F.2d 216· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that employees involved in a dispute before the National Railroad Adjustment Board do not need to be given notice if the award does not adjudicate their individual rights or duties, and that attorneys' fees are recoverable under Section 3 First (p) of the Railway L
• United States v. 416.81 Acres OF Land
  525 F.2d 450· 7th Cir.· 1975-04-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the landowners' arguments regarding failure to join all parties, delay in judicial orders, exclusion of appraiser testimony, discovery issues, judge's absence, inadequate jury awards, and late production of documents lacked merit.
• Jones v. The Bd. OF Educ. Cleveland City Sch. Dist.
  474 F.2d 1232· 6th Cir.· 1973-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in entering summary judgment without considering agency interpretations and without making the Department of Agriculture an indispensable party.
• Tardan v. Chevron OIL Co. (The Cal. Co. Division) & State Mineral Bd. of the State of La.
  463 F.2d 651· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Louisiana State Mineral Board is an agent of the state and thus not suable in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, but remanded the dismissal of Chevron for further explanation.
• Fondahn v. Native Vill. OF Tyonek
  450 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a dispute over tribal membership, even when involving the distribution of federal funds, does not present a federal question and thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Field v. City OF Fort Lauderdale
  227 So. 2d 530· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-10-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment solely on the grounds that the builder was not joined as a party, as the builder could have been added.
• Elgin A. McKENNA v. Udall
  418 F.2d 1171· D.C. Cir.· 1969-07-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the case must be dismissed because indispensable parties (the GSA grantees) were not joined, and an alternative forum exists where all parties can be joined.
• Bennie v. Pastor
  393 F.2d 1· 10th Cir.· 1968-04-08 ·cited 4×
  A release signed for property damage can be avoided due to mutual mistake regarding the existence of personal injuries, even if the absent party who also signed the release is not before the court, especially when state law permits the action to proceed.
• Franz v. E. Columbia Basin Irrigation Dist.
  383 F.2d 391· 9th Cir.· 1967-08-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the United States is an indispensable party, requiring dismissal of the action due to its absence.
• Kovacs v. United States
  355 F.2d 349· 9th Cir.· 1966-01-07 ·cited 4×
• Kash Indus., Inc. v. Petersen Mfg. Co., Inc.
  332 F.2d 1002· 8th Cir.· 1964-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action based on an inadequate record and unresolved factual issues regarding indispensable party status and service of process.
• Mel Warshaw v. Local NO. 415, Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO
  325 F.2d 143· 5th Cir.· 1963-12-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the individual officers were not proven to be parties to the collective bargaining agreement and the trustees of the health and welfare fund were indispensable parties who were not joined.
• Vapor Blast Indep. Shop Worker's Ass'n v. Simon
  305 F.2d 717· 7th Cir.· 1962-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's General Counsel and other agents have discretion to settle compliance issues, and contempt proceedings require the Board's approval and its members as indispensable parties.
• Trans Pac. Corp. v. S. Seas Enters., Ltd.
  291 F.2d 435· 9th Cir.· 1961-06-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the testimony and records of absent parties do not automatically make them indispensable parties to a breach of contract action for damages.
• Bowdoin v. Buford Malone, Jr.
  287 F.2d 282· 5th Cir.· 1961-02-23 ·cited 4×
• GAW v. Higham
  267 F.2d 355· 6th Cir.· 1959-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the dismissal of certain parties was improper and vacated the order, remanding the case for a determination of jurisdiction.
• Guillaume Danos, Sr. v. Waterford OIL Co.
  266 F.2d 76· 5th Cir.· 1959-04-30 ·cited 4×
  An administrator of a succession that owes no debts lacks the capacity under Louisiana law to bring a petitory action alone, even if joining heirs would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
• Burton C. Bovard v. Young
  265 F.2d 823· D.C. Cir.· 1959-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the case must be dismissed for failure to substitute successor parties within the required time frame under Rule 25(d).
• Green v. Hood
  98 So. 2d 488· Fla.· 1957-11-27 ·cited 4×·via Necessary And Indispensable Parties
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed an injunction decree that restrained a sheriff from collecting a tax warrant, holding that the Comptroller of the State of Florida was a necessary and indispensable party to the injunction proceeding and could not be bound by a decree entered wi
• Joseph Gagliano ex rel. Frank Gagliano v. Bernsen
  243 F.2d 880· 5th Cir.· 1957-05-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the action could not be maintained because the Attorney General or Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, indispensable parties, were not named as defendants.
• Vergil Heber Sergeant v. Fudge
  238 F.2d 916· 6th Cir.· 1956-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Postmaster General's statutory authority to discontinue post offices, when exercised within that authority, is not subject to judicial review or injunction.
• Jimenez v. Barber
  235 F.2d 922· 9th Cir.· 1956-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Attorney General's denial of suspension of deportation was not improper when the alien refused to answer relevant questions about organizational affiliations.
• Mount Vernon Mortg. Corp. v. The United States as Parens Patriae
  236 F.2d 724· D.C. Cir.· 1956-07-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that statutes of limitations and laches do not apply to the United States when suing to enforce a public right, such as preventing the diversion of a charitable trust's property.
• Callow v. Lehmann
  233 F.2d 859· 6th Cir.· 1956-05-28 ·cited 4×
• Ether Humphrey v. Stanolind OIL & GAS Co.
  232 F.2d 925· 5th Cir.· 1956-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's order compelling plaintiffs to join additional parties under Rule 19(b) was invalid because the absent parties were not necessary for complete relief between the existing parties.
• O. v. Oyler
  227 F.2d 604· 10th Cir.· 1955-10-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the suit was effectively against the United States, which had not consented to be sued, and therefore must fail.
• Neivert v. Evans
  82 So. 2d 599· Fla.· 1955-09-30 ·cited 4×
  This case concerns whether a discharged police officer's petition for a writ of certiorari to review his termination by a city's Civil Service Board was properly dismissed. The court held that certiorari was the appropriate remedy and that the city itself was not an indispensable
• Jones v. Harvey
  82 So. 2d 371· Fla.· 1955-09-16 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed a receiver appointment and stock sale order in a minority shareholder dispute over restaurant management. The court held that a receiver should not be appointed for a solvent, going concern corporation absent fraud, insolvency, or other exigencie
• Perpetual Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Series Directors OF Equitable Bldg. & Loan Ass'n
  217 F.2d 1· 4th Cir.· 1954-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the removal of the case to federal court was proper and that the district court did not err in dissolving the state court's injunction.
• ST. Regis Paper Co. v. Stuart
  214 F.2d 762· 1st Cir.· 1954-07-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury could reasonably find the commission agreement was several, not joint, and that it had not been terminated or abandoned, allowing for damages to be calculated.
• Anderson v. McKAY
  211 F.2d 798· D.C. Cir.· 1954-03-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Andersons' claim to an unrestricted patent was not perfected because the Secretary of the Interior had not made a final determination, and the 1914 Act imposed a reservation requirement that the Secretary had to consider.
• Burnham v. Layton
  209 F.2d 237· 10th Cir.· 1953-12-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Burnhams are entitled to all advances and necessary expenditures for the ranch's operation and preservation, with any remaining balance belonging to the Laytons.
• Fouke v. Schenewerk
  197 F.2d 234· 5th Cir.· 1952-06-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court lacked substantive jurisdiction because indispensable parties, who were citizens of Texas, were improperly dismissed to cure a diversity jurisdiction defect.
• Baxter v. Pace
  193 F.2d 20· D.C. Cir.· 1951-10-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's current action is barred by laches due to his significant delay in pursuing his claims effectively.
• Mallin v. Schaper
  185 F.2d 1· 7th Cir.· 1950-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the surviving partner was an indispensable party, and because his presence would destroy diversity jurisdiction, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
• Etten v. Lovell MFG. Co.
  184 F.2d 737· 3d Cir.· 1950-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the lower court's judgment must be vacated and the case remanded for reconsideration, as the record concerning the plaintiff's title and standing to sue was unclear and potentially lacked an indispensable party.
• Daggs v. Klein
  169 F.2d 174· 9th Cir.· 1948-08-09 ·cited 4×
  The Secretary of the Navy is an indispensable party to suits seeking reinstatement and compensation for federal civil service employees removed under national security provisions, and thus the suits were properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the Secretary.
• Gall v. Brashier
  169 F.2d 704· 10th Cir.· 1948-08-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an executed oil and gas lease, even if undelivered, can serve as a sufficient memorandum under the statute of frauds, and that related writings like telegrams can be considered together.
• Thomas v. Thomas
  165 F.2d 332· 5th Cir.· 1947-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that realigning a party as a plaintiff to destroy diversity jurisdiction was premature when no issue had yet been joined regarding the validity of the deed or title to the property.
• Greer v. Cline
  148 F.2d 380· 6th Cir.· 1945-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the War Food Administrator's discretionary assignment of inspectors was not an abuse of power, and the subordinate official could be enjoined without joining the Administrator if the action was void, but here it was not.