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

• Johnston v. Cartwright
  355 F.2d 32· 8th Cir.· 1966-01-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that an attorney's statement made in the context of a labor dispute, even before formal litigation, is protected by absolute privilege under Iowa law. The court also affirmed the trial court's discretionary dismissal of the action against other defendants under Rul
• Fincher Motor Sales, Inc. v. Cecile Lakin
  156 So. 2d 672· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-10-08 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the indemnity action for failure to join the lessee of the vehicle as an indispensable party.
• Estrada v. Ahrens
  296 F.2d 690· 5th Cir.· 1961-11-30 ·cited 43×
  Nonresident aliens absent from the country are entitled to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act for agency actions that aggrieve them, and the subordinate official with authority to act is an indispensable party.
• Pyle v. Pyle
  53 So.2d 312· Fla.· 1951-06-29 ·cited 43×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a dismissal of a resulting trust claim, holding that a wife can establish a resulting trust when she provides funds from her separate estate for property purchased by her husband and titled in his name. The court also found that the personal rep
• Fogade v. ENB Revocable Tr.
  263 F.3d 1274· 11th Cir.· 2001-08-28 ·cited 42×
  FOGADE and Corpofin sued to recover shares of Eastern National Bank (ENB) that defendants allegedly misappropriated through a series of transactions on May 9, 1994, designed to shield the shares from Venezuelan judicial proceedings. The district court initially dismissed the case
• Murphy v. Erwin-Wasey, Inc.
  460 F.2d 661· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-26 ·cited 42×
  The court held that sending a fraudulent misrepresentation into Massachusetts constitutes an act within the Commonwealth for jurisdictional purposes under the long-arm statute, and that a sole proprietorship is not an indispensable party that would oust jurisdiction.
• United States v. State of Fla. & Cnty. of Dade
  179 So. 2d 890· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-11-09 ·cited 42×·via Necessary And Indispensable Parties
  The United States appeals a forfeiture judgment denying its claim to gambling proceeds seized by Dade County. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of the United States' belated motion to implead Howard Pinder as a necessary party and its motion to dismiss for failure to jo
• Walker v. Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n
  268 F.2d 16· 9th Cir.· 1959-05-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, and that the denial of the motion to alter the dismissal order was not an abuse of discretion because the proposed amended complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Schuckman v. Rubenstein
  164 F.2d 952· 6th Cir.· 1947-12-12 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the dismissal of the complaint was proper due to lack of diversity jurisdiction and the failure to join indispensable parties, specifically a majority of the board of directors.
• Bennett v. Tucker
  827 F.2d 63· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-11 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, as neither laches nor untimeliness barred the plaintiffs' due process claims, and the Eleventh Amendment and indispensable party arguments were also without merit.
• Fed. Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher
  807 F.2d 345· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-11 ·cited 41×
  The court held that injured parties have independent standing in a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer, and their rights are not merely derivative of the insured's rights, especially when the insurer initiated the action.
• Trans-Bay Eng'rs & Builders, Inc. v. Hills
  D.D.C.· 1976-12-30 ·cited 41×
  The court held that Trans-Bay is conditionally entitled to recover retained construction funds under equitable doctrines, reversing summary judgment for HUD and Advance.
• Mastercrafters Clock & Radio & Co. v. Vacheron & Constantin-Le Coultre Watches, Inc.
  221 F.2d 464· 2d Cir.· 1955-03-31 ·cited 41×
  The court held that copying the distinctive appearance of a luxury clock, even with a lower price and clear labeling, constitutes unfair competition if it is likely to cause confusion among consumers regarding the source or prestige of the product.
• Green v. Hood
  120 So. 2d 223· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-05-04 ·cited 40×·via Necessary And Indispensable Parties
  The court held that the comptroller waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by his voluntary appearance and participation in prior proceedings, and that the trial court erred in denying the comptroller's motion to vacate the final decree.
• McAdoo v. Moses
  101 Fla. 936· Fla.· 1931-02-19 ·cited 40×
  The court reversed a final decree enjoining the use of property as a gasoline station. The reversal was based on the absence of indispensable parties (beneficial owners of the property) and also on the grounds of laches and waiver by the party seeking the injunction.
• Devil LeGRANDE and Eliamise LeGrande v. Emmanuel
  889 So. 2d 991· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-12-22 ·cited 39×
  Pastor Devil Legrande and his wife sued two church members for slander and related torts after they allegedly accused the pastor of stealing church funds to purchase a Mercedes. The trial court dismissed the complaint entirely, but the appellate court reversed the dismissal of th
• Kozich v. Shahady
  702 So. 2d 1289· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-09-24 ·cited 39×
  The court reversed summary judgment dismissing a legal malpractice action against attorneys, holding that the plaintiff retained standing to sue despite assigning his right to the jury award to his brother, and that his amended complaint naming a successor law firm entity related
• Duplantier v. United States
  606 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-19 ·cited 39×
  The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is constitutional as applied to federal judges, and the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
• The Coca-Cola Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  475 F.2d 299· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-15 ·cited 39×
  The court held that judicial resolution of the indispensable parties question was premature and that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint, affirming the principle of exhausting administrative remedies.
• Fifty Assocs. v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  446 F.2d 1187· 9th Cir.· 1970-07-06 ·cited 39×
  The court clarified that its prior order did not mandate dismissal if jurisdiction could be established on remand, and that any jurisdiction found would apply retroactively.
• Broussard v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co.
  398 F.2d 885· 5th Cir.· 1968-07-12 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction because an owner of an undivided interest in the property was an indispensable party under Rule 19.
• Martinez v. Balbin
  76 So. 2d 488· Fla.· 1954-12-17 ·cited 39×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed an appeal from a dismissal of a creditor's bill. The court held that the alleged transferees of the debtor's inheritance were indispensable parties who must be joined in the suit to determine the validity of the transfer and impress a trust on t
• Kroese v. Gen. Steel Castings Corp.
  179 F.2d 760· 3d Cir.· 1950-01-31 ·cited 39×
  A majority of a corporation's directors are not indispensable parties to a shareholder's action to compel the declaration of dividends if the court can fashion a remedy against the corporation itself.
• Ed Freeman and wife Sharon Freeman v. Nw. Acceptance Corp.
  754 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 38×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because complete diversity was likely absent, as the plaintiffs may have been citizens of Colorado, and the defendant corporation, through its subsidiary, also had Colorado citizenship.
• Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago under Tr. Agreement dated January 3 v. Bailey
  750 F.2d 577· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that Chicago Investment's cross-claim should not have been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but its counterclaim was properly dismissed as it was not the real party in interest.
• Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md. v. City OF Sheboygan Falls & the Vill. of Kohler
  713 F.2d 1261· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-19 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Scotty guaranteed the performance of the air pollution control system, thus precluding summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.
• Crouse-Hinds Co. v. Internorth, Inc.
  634 F.2d 690· 2d Cir.· 1980-11-14 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court improperly allocated the burden of proof regarding the business judgment rule when assessing the merits of InterNorth's counterclaim for a preliminary injunction.
• McCOWN v. Heidler
  527 F.2d 204· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-22 ·cited 37×
  Individual officers and directors of a developer can be held liable under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, and the sale of real estate lots may constitute the sale of securities if structured as an investment contract.
• Boles v. Greeneville Hous. Auth.
  468 F.2d 476· 6th Cir.· 1972-10-18 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is an indispensable party to the action, requiring dismissal of the appeal without prejudice to allow joinder.
• Norman v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
  414 F.2d 73· 8th Cir.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the complaint states a cause of action for racial discrimination in employment and should be reinstated, allowing broad judicial discretion in fashioning remedies.
• Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Tr. Co.
  206 F.2d 336· 9th Cir.· 1953-07-27 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the dismissal of a complaint does not automatically require dismissal of a counterclaim, especially when the counterclaim has an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
• Mihara v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc.
  619 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence supported the jury's findings of churning and breach of fiduciary duty, affirming the judgment.
• Moll v. Levitt & Sons OF Puerto RICO, Inc.
  583 F.2d 565· 1st Cir.· 1978-09-15 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the judgment but remanded for the district court to consider the indispensable party issue regarding the bank.
• United States v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., Inc.
  517 F.2d 299· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the statistical evidence and testimony supported a finding of a systemwide pattern and practice of discrimination by T.I.M.E.-D.C. and that the district court's remedial order, while imperfect, was largely appropriate.
• LE Beau v. Libby-Owens-Ford Co.
  484 F.2d 798· 7th Cir.· 1973-07-17 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the International Union was properly dismissed for not being named in the EEOC charge, but the dismissal of LOF and Local 19 was an error under Rule 19 because complete relief could be granted without the International, and dismissal would prejudice the plaint
• Washington Neal v. Sys. Bd. OF Adjustment (Missouri Pac. Railroad)
  348 F.2d 722· 8th Cir.· 1965-07-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal union and contractual remedies, and that indispensable parties were not joined, requiring dismissal.
• Resnik v. LA PAZ Guest Ranch
  289 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1961-04-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that an appeal from an order vacating a judgment is interlocutory and non-appealable, and that partial assignees are not necessarily indispensable parties whose joinder is required to maintain diversity jurisdiction.
• Underwood v. Maloney
  256 F.2d 334· 3d Cir.· 1958-03-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that federal courts must apply state law to determine the capacity of unincorporated associations to sue or be sued in diversity cases, and that Pennsylvania law prohibits class actions by or against such associations, thus requiring dismissal for lack of diversity
• MacKintosh v. Est. of Henry M. Marks
  225 F.2d 211· 5th Cir.· 1955-08-26 ·cited 36×
• W. Va. OIL & GAS Co., Inc. v. George E. Breece Lumber Co., Inc.
  213 F.2d 702· 5th Cir.· 1954-06-04 ·cited 36×
  A federal court has jurisdiction to entertain an independent action to reform a prior judgment based on mutual mistake, even if subsequent transferees of the property are involved, provided those transferees can be joined without ousting jurisdiction.
• Dickinson v. Burnham
  197 F.2d 973· 2d Cir.· 1952-06-24 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court properly adjudicated claims arising from a fraudulent scheme by treating the case as a hybrid class action, allowing for a complete and equitable distribution of funds and barring further claims by absent parties.
• Steinway v. Majestic Amusement Co.
  179 F.2d 681· 10th Cir.· 1949-12-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the mere ownership and voting of a majority of stock in a domestic corporation by a foreign corporation, without more, does not constitute 'engaging in or transacting business' within the state for the purpose of valid service of process under Oklahoma law.
• Isaacks v. Jeffers
  144 F.2d 26· 10th Cir.· 1944-07-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was not tolled because the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence in serving the defendant.
• Crutcher v. Joyce
  134 F.2d 809· 10th Cir.· 1943-03-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the order dismissing claims related to Ella's trust was appealable and should be reversed, while other dismissals were affirmed. The court also held that James W. Crutcher was not a proper party plaintiff as he lacked a vested interest in the trust.
• Rawls v. Tallahassee Hotel Co.
  43 Fla. 288· Fla.· 1901-06-01 ·cited 36×
  The appellate court reversed a perpetual injunction against a husband interfering with a sewer pipe. The court found that the wife, who owned the land where the pipe was laid, was an indispensable party to the lawsuit and should have been included.
• Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Burford
  835 F.2d 305· D.C. Cir.· 1987-12-11 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting the exhaustion defense and that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• LEE v. United States
  809 F.2d 1406· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-09 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the claims against the United States were barred by the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations and that the United States was an indispensable party, requiring dismissal of claims against the Native corporations.
• Cti-Container Leasing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp.
  685 F.2d 1284· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 35×
  A stay order is a final decision, and thus appealable, if it effectively places a party out of court by imposing an indefinite delay. The district court abused its discretion by staying the entire action, rather than severing and staying only the third-party claims against Iran a
• Jett v. Phillips & Assocs.
  439 F.2d 987· 10th Cir.· 1971-03-29 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the trial judge properly dismissed an unincorporated association to preserve diversity jurisdiction and that the plaintiff was an incidental beneficiary to a guarantee agreement, not entitled to recover on it.
• Zwack v. Kraus Bros. & Co., Inc.
  237 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1956-10-02 ·cited 35×
  The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction over the injunctive provisions of the decree but not over the monetary awards or the reference to a master, and affirmed certain conclusions of law while remanding others.