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

• Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alejandro Alfonzo-Larrain R.
  854 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 20×
  The court agrees with the majority's result and much of its reasoning, while also sympathizing with the dissent's concerns about jurisdictional errors.
• United States v. Elvin Berenguer
  821 F.2d 19· 1st Cir.· 1987-06-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for relief from a default judgment because the motion was untimely under Rule 60(b)(1) and the circumstances did not justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6) or (4).
• Liddy v. Urbanek
  707 F.2d 1222· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 20×
  A corporation is an indispensable party in a shareholder derivative action, and its presence must be considered for diversity jurisdiction.
• Kan. City S. Ry. Co. v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp.
  624 F.2d 822· 8th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 20×
  The district court erred by failing to recognize its lack of jurisdiction to overrule an ICC order without joining the United States as a party.
• Wright v. Albuquerque Auto-Truck Stop Plaza, Inc.
  591 F.2d 585· 10th Cir.· 1979-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party, nor did it err in its jury instructions regarding the scope of employment.
• Chance v. Cnty. Bd. OF Sch. Trs. OF McHENRY Cnty.
  332 F.2d 971· 7th Cir.· 1964-06-10 ·cited 20×
  The district court's dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction was proper.
• Stroud v. Ezra T. Benson
  254 F.2d 448· 4th Cir.· 1958-04-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Secretary of Agriculture was an indispensable party to the suit, requiring dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to improper venue.
• Radio Corp. OF Am. & United States v. Int'l Standard Elec. Corp.
  232 F.2d 726· 3d Cir.· 1956-04-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the June 22, 1937 operation did not constitute a reduction to practice was not clearly erroneous, and affirmed the judgment.
• Tucker v. Nat'l Linen Serv. Corp.
  200 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1953-01-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the suit was properly dismissed for lack of indispensable parties and failure to state a cause of action, as the alleged claims were either adjudicated, passed by sheriff's sale, or barred by limitations and laches.
• Helene Curtis Indus., Inc. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc.
  199 F.2d 732· 2d Cir.· 1952-11-05 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's grants of injunctions restraining prosecution of substantially identical patent litigation in other federal courts, and denied petitions for mandamus and/or prohibition.
• Tomlinson of High Point v. COE
  123 F.2d 65· D.C. Cir.· 1941-10-27 ·cited 20×
  The Commissioner of Patents is a proper party in a suit under R.S. § 4915 seeking to authorize trademark registration, even when an opposition has been filed.
• Thomas v. Suwannee Cnty.
  734 So. 2d 492· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-05-14 ·cited 19×
  Neighboring property owners challenged a county zoning board's grant of a special exception allowing construction of a migrant worker facility on agricultural land. The trial court dismissed their complaint for failing to wait 30 days after filing with the county before filing in
• Cope v. Waugh
  627 So. 2d 136· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-12-14 ·cited 19×
  The court held that it was error to allow an action to proceed after the death of a defendant without substituting the defendant's estate.
• Enter. Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Donald Hodel
  883 F.2d 890· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the Tribe is an indispensable party and thus the suit against federal officials must be dismissed, and affirmed the dismissal of the suit against the Tribe based on sovereign immunity.
• W.R. Cooper, Inc. v. City OF Miami Beach & Garcia-Allen Constr. Co., Inc.
  512 So. 2d 324· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-09-15 ·cited 19×
  The Secretary of Labor is not an indispensable party to a contract dispute between a subcontractor, prime contractor, and city regarding withheld funds.
• Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Grounds
  311 So. 2d 164· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-04-16 ·cited 19×
  Government Employees Insurance Company appeals a judgment in favor of its insured for failing to settle a claim within policy limits despite a clear settlement offer. The court affirmed the excess liability judgment but reversed the attorney's fee award, holding that the insurer'
• Green v. Peters
  140 So. 2d 601· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-04-13 ·cited 19×
  This interlocutory appeal addresses whether a trial court properly allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint to insert the word 'as' before 'Comptroller of the State of Florida' in the defendant's name, thereby designating him as a representative rather than an individual. The
• Hazeltine Corp. v. Kirkpatrick
  165 F.2d 683· 3d Cir.· 1948-01-07 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus must be denied because the district court's rulings were not beyond its jurisdiction and any errors could be remedied by appeal from the final judgment.
• Navajo Tribe OF Indians v. State OF NEW Mexico
  809 F.2d 1455· 10th Cir.· 1987-01-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Navajo Tribe's claim for equitable title to unallotted lands was cognizable exclusively under the Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA), accrued when the lands were restored to the public domain, and was therefore time-barred. The ICCA's exclusive remedy was
• Myers v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  731 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a two-sentence order granting summary judgment, which fails to explain the reasoning or address the parties' arguments, is insufficient for appellate review.
• Cloverleaf Standardbred Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. The Nat'l Bank OF Wash.
  699 F.2d 1274· D.C. Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 18×
  A district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 when a necessary party could not be joined without destroying diversity jurisdiction.
• Lexine Perdue v. ROY Stone Transfer Corp.
  690 F.2d 1091· 4th Cir.· 1982-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a right-to-sue letter, arguing the EEOC should have been joined as a party.
• Jacques Moreau v. Egon Oppenheim
  663 F.2d 1300· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-02 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and the district court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict and rejecting the Oppenheims' various claims of error.
• Gte Sylvania v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n
  598 F.2d 790· 3d Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Consumer Product Safety Act's disclosure requirements apply to information released under the Freedom of Information Act, and that the district court correctly enjoined disclosure.
• Vaughan v. S. Ry. Co.
  542 F.2d 641· 4th Cir.· 1976-10-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the citizenship of the decedent's local personal representative, required by state law, determines diversity jurisdiction, not the citizenship of the beneficiaries.
• Brigadier General Walter P. Leber v. Canal Zone Cent. Labor Union & Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO
  383 F.2d 110· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-25 ·cited 18×
• Am. Guar. Corp. v. Burton
  380 F.2d 789· 1st Cir.· 1967-07-14 ·cited 18×
• Provident Tradesmens Bank & Tr. Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. & George M. Patterson
  365 F.2d 802· 3d Cir.· 1966-08-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the absence of an 'indispensable' party, Dutcher, was not a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal, especially after trial, and that the jury's factual determination regarding permission should be preserved.
• Agrashell, Inc. v. Hammons Prods. Co.
  352 F.2d 443· 8th Cir.· 1965-11-09 ·cited 18×
  A party holding an exclusive license to a patent, but not an assignment of the entire patent or an undivided share, cannot sue for infringement in its own name without joining the patent owner as an indispensable party.
• Bushman Constr. Co. v. AIR Force Acad. Hous.
  327 F.2d 481· 10th Cir.· 1964-01-27 ·cited 18×
  Rental of equipment cannot form the basis for a lien under Colorado law, and a surety's obligation is extinguished if the principal's obligation is met.
• United States v. Cless
  254 F.2d 590· 3d Cir.· 1958-04-11 ·cited 18×
  The foreclosure of a prior mortgage in Pennsylvania divests all subsequent liens, including those held by the United States, without requiring the United States to be joined as a party or given actual notice, as 28 U.S.C. § 2410 is merely a waiver of sovereign immunity.
• The Order OF R.R. Telegraphers v. NEW Orleans
  229 F.2d 59· 8th Cir.· 1956-01-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the National Railroad Adjustment Board's award was void for failing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to indispensable parties (the Clerks' union), and that the current court proceeding also lacked indispensable parties.
• HERTZ v. Record Publ'g Co. OF Erie
  219 F.2d 397· 3d Cir.· 1955-01-05 ·cited 18×
  The federal district court has jurisdiction to compel a stock transfer even if state law's primary remedy is mandamus, and a prior state court ruling on ownership is not res judicata if the issues and timeframes differ.
• Green v. Herschel S. Green and Madge Green
  218 F.2d 130· 7th Cir.· 1954-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court lacked diversity jurisdiction because a party, Madge Green, who was named as a defendant, should have been realigned as a plaintiff due to her interests in the trust, thus destroying complete diversity between the parties.
• MacAtee, Inc. v. United States
  214 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1954-06-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that federal tax liens arising from assessment dates are prior to subsequently filed state attachment liens, even if notice of the tax lien was filed later. However, the court reversed the foreclosure order due to the taxpayer's absence as a party.
• Rubens v. Ellis
  202 F.2d 415· 5th Cir.· 1953-02-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the present suit was barred by res judicata because the same claims were previously litigated and decided on the merits in a prior New Mexico federal court action between the same parties.
• Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc.
  187 F.2d 52· 3d Cir.· 1951-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the agreement constituted an assignment of the patent to the corporation, making it the owner and thus an indispensable party to infringement suits, but that the patent owner (Ackerman) was not an indispensable party to the declaratory judgment action between
• Metropolis Theatre Co. v. Barkhausen
  170 F.2d 481· 7th Cir.· 1948-11-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the lessors of an adjoining parcel were indispensable parties whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction, thus affirming the dismissal of the case.
• Wesson v. Crain
  165 F.2d 6· 8th Cir.· 1948-01-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that not all beneficiaries of a trust are indispensable parties in an action to remove a trustee for misconduct, and the case should proceed to trial on the merits.
• Young v. Garrett
  149 F.2d 223· 8th Cir.· 1945-05-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the grantors of one plaintiff and the administrators of certain estates were indispensable parties, and their inclusion would destroy diversity jurisdiction, thus affirming the dismissal of the cases.
• Eighth Reg'l War Labor Bd. v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co.
  145 F.2d 462· 5th Cir.· 1944-12-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin nonresident defendants and that there was no sound basis for issuing an injunction against resident defendants.
• Baird v. Peoples Bank & Tr. Co. of Westfield
  120 F.2d 1001· 3d Cir.· 1941-06-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that presumptive remaindermen are indispensable parties in an action by life tenants against trustees concerning the trust corpus.
• Agritrade, LP v. Quercia
  253 So. 3d 28· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-11-29 ·cited 17×
  Agritrade entities and a member appealed summary judgments and a jury verdict in favor of lenders Quercia and Agro Supply arising from a $15 million loan dispute. The court affirmed most judgments but reversed the summary judgment in favor of Agro Supply on the lost promissory no
• Clinton v. Int'l Org. of Masters
  254 F.2d 370· 9th Cir.· 1958-03-24 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a labor contract dispute, even by a seaman, is not within admiralty jurisdiction unless it has a direct relation to a ship or the sea. Federal question and diversity jurisdiction were also not established.
• Greenleaf v. Safeway Trails, Inc.
  140 F.2d 889· 2d Cir.· 1944-02-07 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in dismissing the action for want of jurisdiction based on the non-joinder of a joint obligor, and that the condition precedent of an audit was waived.
• Oakland Props. Corp. v. Hogan
  96 Fla. 40· Fla.· 1928-06-23 ·cited 17×
  Oakland Properties Corporation sought to reform a deed from Middle River Development Company and vacate a mortgage foreclosure decree. The Florida Supreme Court held that Oakland was an indispensable party to the foreclosure proceedings as the holder of legal title to ten acres o
• Spartech Corp. v. Opper
  890 F.2d 949· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper, and the district court's findings of fact regarding breach of fiduciary duty and lack of fraud were not clearly erroneous.
• F. & H.R. Farman-Farmaian Consulting Eng'rs Firm & Farough Farman-Farmaian v. Harza Eng'g Co.
  882 F.2d 281· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the act of state doctrine bars the suit because the confiscation of the Iranian firm's assets, including its debt claim against Harza, was complete within Iran and did not involve U.S. territory or interests protected by the extraterritoriality exception.
• Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n
  859 F.2d 842· 10th Cir.· 1988-10-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking due to the lack of complete diversity, as USAA, an unincorporated association, is a citizen of every state in which its members reside. The court remanded the case to the district court to consider dismissing nondiverse
• Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. The City OF NEW York
  762 F.2d 205· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from exercising diversity jurisdiction due to exceptional circumstances, and that Gimbel was not an indispensable party.