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

• Rochester Methodist Hosp. v. The Travelers Ins. Co.
  728 F.2d 1006· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a statement made in 1977 constituted fraudulent misrepresentation, but a statement made in 1972 did not, due to lack of justifiable reliance.
• Dolch v. United Cal. Bank
  702 F.2d 178· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a claim challenging the validity of a copyright assignment for lack of consideration arises under state contract law, not federal copyright law, and thus does not establish federal question jurisdiction. Furthermore, realignment of a party whose interests alig
• Harris v. Bailey
  675 F.2d 614· 4th Cir.· 1982-04-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the garnishment of Social Security benefits, though settled, presented a justiciable controversy capable of repetition yet evading review, thus reversing the dismissal for mootness. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Attorney General as a party.
• Perry v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. & David Ussery
  379 So. 2d 429· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-01-30 ·cited 16×
  Perry appealed a trial court order that suspended his negligence action against an insured motorist (Ussery) and his liability insurer (Fireman's Fund) pending service of process on the insured. The court treated the order as a nonappealable interlocutory stay rather than an abat
• Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Lake Shore Land Co., Inc.
  610 F.2d 1185· 3d Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a jury trial for the equitable claim of specific performance and in dismissing the defendant's counterclaim as an omitted counterclaim filed without leave. The court also affirmed the denial of a jury trial for the cou
• Bio-Analytical Servs., Inc. v. The Edgewater Hosp., Inc.
  565 F.2d 450· 7th Cir.· 1977-10-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Dr. Mark was not an indispensable party and that principles of comity did not preclude federal jurisdiction due to a pending state court action.
• Exch. Nat'l Bank OF Chicago v. Rotocast Plastics Prods., Inc.
  341 So. 2d 787· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-01-11 ·cited 16×
  Exchange National Bank of Chicago appeals the denial of its motion to dismiss for improper venue in a usury and fraud action filed in Florida. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the federal venue statute for national banks is mandatory and was not waived,
• Moore v. Knowles
  482 F.2d 1069· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the school board's initial suspension of a teacher pending criminal indictments did not violate due process, but remanded for a hearing on whether the teacher had a property interest in continued employment under new legal standards.
• Zapata v. Smith
  437 F.2d 1024· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-02 ·cited 16×
  A suit seeking back pay from government officials is considered a suit against the United States, making the United States an indispensable party that must be joined.
• Mrs. Francies Morrison v. NEW Orleans Pub. Serv. Inc.
  415 F.2d 419· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for nonjoinder of indispensable parties, as their joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction and Louisiana law prohibits splitting wrongful death claims.
• Local NO. 92, Int'l Ass'n OF Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO v. Norris
  383 F.2d 735· 5th Cir.· 1967-10-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a union local is liable for attorney fees under LMRDA § 501(b) regardless of whether the judgment against officials is satisfied, and that the denial of a jury trial was proper as the action sought equitable relief.
• Cable Vision, Inc. v. Kutv, Inc.
  335 F.2d 348· 9th Cir.· 1964-07-15 ·cited 16×
  State law claims for tortious interference and unfair competition cannot protect exclusive rights to broadcast programs if those rights extend beyond what federal copyright law provides, as this interferes with the federal policy of free access to the public domain.
• Stevens v. Chauncey C. Loomis
  334 F.2d 775· 1st Cir.· 1964-06-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the plaintiff beneficiary had a separable right of action, her sister was a necessary party whose joinder would destroy diversity, and proceeding without her would be an abuse of discretion.
• Niesz v. Gorsuch
  295 F.2d 909· 9th Cir.· 1961-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a merger terminated the plaintiff's standing as a stockholder and the corporation's capacity to sue or be sued, requiring remand for potential intervention by the surviving corporation.
• Coast Cities Coaches, Inc. v. Whyte
  130 So. 2d 121· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-05-11 ·cited 16×
  Whyte and Hickling, original sellers of a bus company stock, sought to enjoin a sale to the county and rescind subsequent stock sales by Williams. The court affirmed an injunction against the county sale but reversed the rescission of prior sales, finding the injunction necessary
• Vene D. FRY v. Layne-Western Co.
  282 F.2d 97· 8th Cir.· 1960-06-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting an injunction for unfair competition because the defendant, representing a company with prior use of the name in the territory, was not acting unfairly, and the plaintiff had knowledge of the prior use.
• Longview Tugboat Co. v. Jameson
  218 F.2d 547· 9th Cir.· 1955-01-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, and therefore should have dismissed the action.
• Hunt Tool Co. v. Moore, Inc.
  212 F.2d 685· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the intervention was permissive under Rule 24(b)(2) and that the intervener cured the jurisdictional defect by dismissing non-diverse defendants, thus the district court had jurisdiction.
• Hospoder v. United States
  209 F.2d 427· 3d Cir.· 1953-12-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while a mechanical error in an official record might warrant a rehearing within the district court's mandamus powers, the suit must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the United States' sovereign immunity and the absence of an indispensable party.
• Paolo v. Garfinkel
  200 F.2d 280· 3d Cir.· 1952-12-08 ·cited 16×
  The Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization is an indispensable party defendant in a review under Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, requiring the suit to be brought where personal service can be made upon him.
• Sellas v. Kirk
  200 F.2d 217· 9th Cir.· 1952-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Interior is an indispensable party and that the agency's action in determining grazing privileges is committed to agency discretion and thus not judicially reviewable.
• Dunham v. Robertson
  198 F.2d 316· 10th Cir.· 1952-07-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Crandall Creek Land and Cattle Company was not an indispensable party because the trustee, as assignee, was the real party in interest.
• DELTA Drilling Co. v. Arnett
  186 F.2d 481· 6th Cir.· 1950-12-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the initial judgment quieting title was final and dispositive of the main defendants' claims, and that subsequent purchasers were bound by the litigation's outcome due to lis pendens.
• MAY v. Maurer
  185 F.2d 475· 10th Cir.· 1950-11-01 ·cited 16×
  A party must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief when the issue involves a substantial question of rent control applicability, and a superior official is an indispensable party if the principal relief sought would bind them.
• Johnson v. Middleton
  175 F.2d 535· 7th Cir.· 1949-06-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Bishop Kelly was an indispensable party, and his citizenship with that of some plaintiffs destroyed diversity jurisdiction, requiring dismissal.
• Buss v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.
  126 F.2d 960· 8th Cir.· 1942-04-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prior bankruptcy proceeding initiated by one tenant in common, without the other cotenant being a party, did not bar the second cotenant from seeking relief under the Bankruptcy Act, and that the prior orders were not res judicata as to her.
• Alfred Hofmann, Inc. v. Knitting Machs. Corp.
  123 F.2d 458· 3d Cir.· 1941-11-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an actual controversy exists for declaratory judgment purposes when a patentee threatens to sue a manufacturer's customers, even if the manufacturer itself has not directly infringed since the patent's issuance. The court also found the ownership status of one
• Heartwood 2, LLC v. Shay Dori
  208 So. 3d 817· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-01-11 ·cited 15×
  Heartwood appealed a trial court's dismissal of its foreclosure claim against a mortgaged condominium property, arguing the dismissal was improper. The appellate court reversed, holding that the mortgage contained a valid legal description enabling foreclosure despite a deficienc
• Palafrugell Holdings, Inc. v. Marwin S. Cassel
  825 So. 2d 937· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-01-10 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to join an indispensable party, in ruling that the defendants owed no fiduciary duty, in finding the claims barred by the statute of limitations, and in granting summary judgment for lack of standin
• D.F. v. Dep't OF Revenue ex rel. L.F.
  736 So. 2d 782· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-07-09 ·cited 15×
  D.F. appeals orders increasing his child support obligation and barring him from challenging paternity over nine years after the final divorce judgment. The court affirms, holding that D.F. is barred by res judicata from contesting paternity and that the maternal grandparents are
• Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity
  910 F.2d 555· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the absent tribes were not necessary parties to the Makah's procedural claims challenging the regulatory process, but were indispensable parties to claims seeking reallocation of the 1987 harvest.
• Quayside Assocs., Ltd. v. Triefler
  506 So. 2d 6· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-03-03 ·cited 15×
  Quayside Associates and La Ville appealed a jury verdict finding an implied contract (but no express contract) and awarding a real estate salesman damages based on the express contract terms. The court affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence supported an implied contract claim
• Fritz v. Am. Home Shield Corp.
  751 F.2d 1152· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-28 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the alter ego theory cannot be used to disregard a corporation's state of incorporation for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a late motion to drop a nondiverse party.
• Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
  678 F.2d 93· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining jurisdiction over a second-filed patent infringement action in favor of a first-filed action in another district.
• Ilan-Gat Eng'rs, Ltd. v. Antigua Int'l Bank
  659 F.2d 234· D.C. Cir.· 1981-07-27 ·cited 15×
  A court retains jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction and impose sanctions for discovery violations, even if an indispensable party's presence might later destroy diversity jurisdiction. The magistrate erred in dismissing the case and refusing to consider sanctions.
• Jett v. Zink
  474 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-09 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of an injunction against state court proceedings and its grant of summary judgment based on a state court's res judicata effect. The court found no basis to enjoin the state action or to overturn the summary judgment.
• Ganem v. Herlinda Ganem de Issa
  269 So. 2d 740· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-11-21 ·cited 15×
  Elias Ganem appeals a final summary judgment awarding approximately $1.8 million in damages to family members for conversion of funds and other tortious conduct. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly sanctioned Ganem's discovery violatio
• Bethell v. Peace
  441 F.2d 495· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-26 ·cited 15×
  The court held that absent co-owners were not indispensable parties and that the district court had discretion to enjoin prosecution of foreign suits based on an invalid contract.
• Berlinsky v. Woods
  178 F.2d 265· 4th Cir.· 1949-12-06 ·cited 15×
  The District Court properly dismissed the tenant's suit because it lacked jurisdiction over the Housing Expediter and the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
• Epstein v. Bank OF Am.
  162 So. 3d 159· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-01-28 ·cited 14×
  A homeowner appeals the trial court's order granting a bank's motion to vacate a final foreclosure judgment entered over three years earlier due to an incorrect legal description in the mortgage. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the judgment was voidable
• Diaz v. Impex OF Doral, Inc.
  7 So. 3d 591· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-03-18 ·cited 14×
  Luis Diaz, a leased employee, sued two related companies for retaliatory termination under Florida's Whistle Blower Act after complaining about unsafe equipment. The trial court granted a directed verdict dismissing one defendant (Impex Logistics) because it had fewer than ten em
• Sudhoff v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
  942 So. 2d 425· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-10-20 ·cited 14×
  Eva Sudhoff appeals the denial of her motions to intervene in and set aside a foreclosure sale of her marital home, arguing she was not named as a party and received no notice. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Sudhoff was a necessary party to the foreclos
• Pitcairn v. Francine Vowell
  580 So. 2d 219· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-05-01 ·cited 14×
  In this certiorari proceeding, the First District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court's order requiring an alleged father to submit to blood testing for genetic tissue typing in a paternity action. The court held that a putative father cannot use the presumption of legitimacy (a
• Kesl, Inc. v. Racquet Club OF Deer Creek II Condo., Inc.
  574 So. 2d 251· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-02-06 ·cited 14×
  Kesl, Inc., owner of an adjacent tennis and swimming club, seeks to enforce a Club Membership Agreement against a condominium association, requiring the association to collect membership dues from unit owners. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause o
• Korman v. Iglesias
  736 F. Supp. 261· S.D. Fla.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Copyright Act does not preempt the plaintiff's fraud and constructive trust claims, and that the civil theft claim is not preempted because co-authors cannot infringe copyright and civil theft requires scienter not present in copyright infringement. The co
• P.P. Fish and Irene Fish v. Post OF Amvets # 85
  560 So. 2d 337· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-04-25 ·cited 14×
  P.P. Fish and Irene Fish appealed the dismissal of their third amended complaint seeking to quiet title and ejectment from real property held by Post of Amvets #85. The court reversed, holding that the complaint sufficiently pleaded a chain of title and that the trial court impro
• In re Precision Screen Machs., Inc.
  729 F.2d 1428· Fed. Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus would not be issued because there was no clear demonstration of abuse of discretion by the district court or frustration of appellate jurisdiction.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  714 F.2d 1157· D.C. Cir.· 1983-08-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the ICC's dismissal of complaints for failure to join all participating carriers in joint-rate cases was an abuse of discretion, as the relevant statutes did not mandate such joinder and the complainants lacked fair notice of this requirement.
• Bienvenido Diaz v. Schwerman Trucking Co.
  709 F.2d 1371· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in summarily enforcing the arbitration award without litigating the Union's duty of fair representation, a necessary predicate for the employees' claim.
• Brotherhood of Railway v. ST. Louis Sw. Ry. Co.
  676 F.2d 132· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that notice provisions for indispensable parties under the Railway Labor Act are jurisdictional and cannot be waived, and that in this specific case, no indispensable party required notice.