Indispensable Party

1,074 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Dickinson v. D. H. Bell and his wife
  214 So. 2d 24· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-09-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the amended complaint stated a cause of action and that the trial court's order denying the motion to dismiss was correct.
• Rawlings v. Nat'l Molasses Co.
  394 F.2d 645· 9th Cir.· 1968-05-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Feed Service, by virtue of the license grant, did not retain a right to exclude others and therefore was not an indispensable party to the patent infringement suit.
• The First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Okla. City v. Edwina McKEEL
  387 F.2d 741· 10th Cir.· 1967-09-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Oklahoma Deadman's Statute barred the appellee's testimony and that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding of a gift.
• Untalan v. Calvo
  381 F.2d 228· 9th Cir.· 1967-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The district court's order transferring the action to the Island Court of Guam and purporting to give that court sole power to decide jurisdiction and authorize litigation is reversed.
• Reed v. Forcheimer
  368 F.2d 982· 5th Cir.· 1966-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Harder was not an indispensable party, and thus the trial court did not err in failing to realign him as a plaintiff and dismiss the suit for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Daniel v. Earlene V. Williams
  189 So. 2d 640· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-08-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint was procedurally improper for challenging a statute's constitutionality and failed to adequately plead irreparable injury.
• Gorsuch v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
  360 F.2d 23· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Albert J. Doig was an indispensable party to the declaratory judgment action concerning the supersedeas bond, and the failure to join him required dismissal of the action due to lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• The Order OF R.R. Telegraphers v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
  349 F.2d 408· 10th Cir.· 1965-10-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the Clerks were indispensable parties, the National Railroad Adjustment Board, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, should have been given the first opportunity to consider the entire dispute, including the Clerks' contract.
• Vance Simmons v. United States Dep't of Health
  328 F.2d 86· 3d Cir.· 1964-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint solely for failure to name the Secretary as the proper party defendant, especially when an extension of time was subsequently granted.
• Dombrovskis v. Esperdy
  321 F.2d 463· 2d Cir.· 1963-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the claim for adjustment of status due to the failure to join the indispensable Secretary of State, and that the claim for discretionary stays of deportation was without merit as there was no evidence of an unlawful policy
• McNAYR v. Cranbrook Invs., Inc.
  146 So. 2d 400· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-11-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the word 'maintained' in the statute refers to the progress of the action, not its commencement, allowing the comptroller to be joined after the initial 60-day period.
• Mashak v. Wilber F. Hacker
  297 F.2d 495· 7th Cir.· 1961-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely filed.
• RIO Hondo Harvesting Ass'n v. Johnson
  293 F.2d 426· 5th Cir.· 1961-08-03 ·cited 2×
• Eads v. Sayen
  281 F.2d 791· 7th Cir.· 1960-08-12 ·cited 2×
• McCORMICK v. Tipton
  259 F.2d 913· 6th Cir.· 1958-10-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Pagnotti was an indispensable party whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction, thus the action was properly dismissed.
• Hood v. James
  256 F.2d 895· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prior order fully relinquished the district court's caretaker jurisdiction, and the current suit failed to establish diversity jurisdiction.
• Rogers v. B & B Vending Co.
  250 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1957-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor is an indispensable party in an action challenging the applicability of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the court below lacked jurisdiction without the Secretary's presence.
• Abler v. Brownell
  242 F.2d 28· D.C. Cir.· 1957-02-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the suit must be dismissed because the United States, an indispensable party, was not named as a defendant and had not consented to be sued.
• The Cont'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Emery J. Woodall
  239 F.2d 707· 10th Cir.· 1957-01-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System had the authority to conduct a hearing regarding a state member bank's capital adequacy. The Board was an indispensable party, and its absence warranted dismissal.
• Indus. Synthetics Corp. (American Hard Rubber Co. v. Swan Rubber Co. & Beck & Gregg Hardware Co.
  234 F.2d 819· 5th Cir.· 1956-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the patent licensee could not maintain an infringement suit alone without the patent owner, who is an indispensable party. The dismissal of the suit without prejudice was affirmed.
• Gulf Ref. Co. v. Price
  232 F.2d 25· 5th Cir.· 1956-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for all property claimed, as plaintiffs only proved prima facie title to specific sections against the defendant, who claimed no title. The judgment was reformed to reflect ownership only of those sections.
• Florentine v. Landon
  231 F.2d 452· 9th Cir.· 1955-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the dismissal of the petition for a declaration of citizenship was improper because the petitioner should have been granted an opportunity to amend the complaint.
• Spriggs v. McKAY
  228 F.2d 31· D.C. Cir.· 1955-09-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the lands in question were restricted Indian allotments and the indispensable party, Mary Bradford O’Neal Candler, was not properly served within the jurisdiction.
• Severo Ruiz Chavez v. McGRANERY
  220 F.2d 857· 9th Cir.· 1955-03-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal was proper because the sole defendant served could not provide relief and an indispensable party was absent.
• Dempsey v. D. B. & M. OIL & GAS Co.
  219 F.2d 808· 6th Cir.· 1955-02-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the assignees of oil and gas leases were indispensable parties, destroying diversity jurisdiction.
• Hartford Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Henry L. Crowley & Co., Inc
  219 F.2d 568· 3d Cir.· 1955-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the second count for declaratory judgment as no actual controversy existed, nor in staying the first count pending the New York action.
• Gotthard Hanson v. Hutcheson
  217 F.2d 171· 7th Cir.· 1954-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Local 101 was an indispensable party, requiring dismissal of the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Dragna v. Landon
  209 F.2d 26· 9th Cir.· 1953-12-19 ·cited 2×
• Hernandez v. Siciliano
  208 F.2d 33· D.C. Cir.· 1953-10-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the settlement stipulation, embodied in a court order, was mandatory and binding on the appellants.
• Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ryle
  188 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1951-05-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prior decision remains authoritative despite statutory amendments and the adoption of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the suit was therefore wrongly dismissed.
• Berry v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.
  188 F.2d 820· 5th Cir.· 1951-04-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an assignment of a portion of an oil and gas lease does not, under Mississippi law, create a divisible obligation to drill on each segregated portion during the primary term, and that a producing well on one portion extends the lease as to all portions.
• Smart v. Woods
  184 F.2d 714· 6th Cir.· 1950-10-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the Housing Expediter, who is an indispensable party residing in Washington D.C., and thus could not entertain the action filed in Ohio.
• Emery v. Adams
  179 F.2d 586· 6th Cir.· 1950-02-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action against both Flakall Corporation and Harry W. Adams individually, as service of process was invalid and venue was improper.
• Jacobs v. Off. of Hous. Expediter
  176 F.2d 338· 7th Cir.· 1949-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Housing Expediter was an indispensable party and that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim under the amended Housing and Rent Act.
• Anderson v. Mercado
  163 F.2d 303· 1st Cir.· 1947-08-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that delivery, for the purpose of price regulations, requires actual possession, not just passage of title, and that the sale in question occurred after the effective date of the applicable price regulation.
• Eddy v. Kelby
  163 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1947-07-22 ·cited 2×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as the opinion is a dissent regarding fees.
• Union Producing Co. v. White
  153 F.2d 856· 5th Cir.· 1946-02-14 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Alexander
  131 F.2d 359· 9th Cir.· 1942-11-10 ·cited 2×
• Hotel Markham, Inc. v. Ball
  131 F.2d 424· 5th Cir.· 1942-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parties before it were sufficient to interpret the trust instruments and terminate the trust, and that the lower court's decree was appropriate.
• Century - Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Frantz
  369 So. 3d 739· Fla. 2d DCA· 2023-08-11 ·cited 1×
  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
• Espaillat v. Sec. First Ins. Co.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-08-05 ·cited 1×
  Ana Espaillat, a non-party to litigation, appealed a trial court order granting in part a motion to dismiss that named her as an indispensable party to be joined. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because Ana lacked standing as a non-party and the order was non-final and n
• White v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  273 So. 3d 1021· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-06-05 ·cited 1×
  Pat W. White and Barbara Turkell-White appeal a foreclosure judgment entered by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The appellants argued the Bank lacked standing and failed to join an indispensable party (an allegedly existing trust). The court dismissed the appeal as to the deceased Turkell
• FL Homes 1, LLC v. Toula Kokolis
  271 So. 3d 6· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-05-15 ·cited 1×
  This foreclosure appeal concerns whether a mortgage foreclosure judgment was void due to the mortgagee's failure to join the record title holder, FL Homes LLC, as a defendant. The court held that the judgment was void for this failure to join an indispensable party, and consequen
• MEH Byron 4 LLC v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
  187 So. 3d 335· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-03-09 ·cited 1×
• Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. S.B.
  124 So. 3d 377· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-10-23 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Department of Revenue appealed a trial court's dismissal with prejudice of its petition to establish paternity and child support for failure to join an indispensable party. The court reversed, holding that dismissal for procedural defects like failure to join a party
• Brander v. Trisha Stoddard
  78 So. 3d 101· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-01-25 ·cited 1×
  The trial court abused its discretion by denying a rehearing and dismissing the petition without allowing the appellant an opportunity to prove timely service of process on indispensable parties.
• Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
  123 F. Supp. 83· M.D. Fla.· 2003-02-04 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike defenses and motion to compel exceeding deposition limits, and granted in part defendant's motion for a protective order and stay of discovery.
• Ostoski v. Cianfrogna
  789 So. 2d 529· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-07-20 ·cited 1×
  Gary Ostoski appealed a trial court order dismissing his fraud and partnership dissolution complaint on the ground that his wife Linda was an indispensable party. The appellate court granted certiorari review and quashed the dismissal, holding that the trial court lacked authorit
• Chodos v. Knut Kjenslie & Renita Kjenslie
  773 So. 2d 1193· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-12-01 ·cited 1×
• Jabour v. Calleja
  731 So. 2d 792· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-04-21 ·cited 1×
  In this boundary dispute, the Jabours obtained a quitclaim deed from the Callejas to resolve a property line conflict. The Callejas later sought to rescind the deed, claiming unilateral mistake about the acreage conveyed. The appellate court reversed the trial court's invalidatio