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

• Young v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
  790 F.2d 567· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-02 ·cited 10×
  A shareholder derivative action requires the alleged wrongdoers (directors) to be subject to personal jurisdiction, and mere adverse effects on a corporation within a state are insufficient to establish jurisdiction over out-of-state directors.
• Pearce v. Se. Banking Corp.
  54 F.R.D. 486· S.D. Fla.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 10×
• Young C. Park v. Didden
  695 F.2d 626· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 10×
  A district court must conduct a careful, practical analysis under Rule 19 before dismissing an action for failure to join parties, and cannot dismiss based on conclusory labels like 'necessary' or 'indispensable' without such analysis.
• Blakeney v. Blakeney
  664 F.2d 433· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims that interfere with state probate proceedings.
• Lambert v. Dracos
  403 So. 2d 481· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-08-13 ·cited 10×
  In this mortgage foreclosure appeal, the court held that co-tenants who are co-obligors on a mortgage are indispensable parties and cannot be foreclosed against individually. The court reversed the foreclosure judgment because the plaintiff failed to join Clara Lambert Dracos, th
• Zukowski v. Dunton
  650 F.2d 30· 4th Cir.· 1981-05-21 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision regarding the land transfer but modified the stock transfer order, finding that a constructive trust for stock could not exist as no stock was ever issued.
• Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Oscar E. Dooly Assocs., Inc.
  377 So. 2d 730· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-11-20 ·cited 10×
  National Title Insurance Company, as escrow agent, appeals a judgment requiring it to pay $10,000 earnest money to a real estate broker and sellers who claimed the purchasers defaulted on a land sale contract. The court reversed because the purchasers, who had the primary interes
• Ricci v. State Bd. OF LAW Exam'rs
  569 F.2d 782· 3d Cir.· 1978-01-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is an indispensable party and thus the case must be dismissed for failure to join a necessary party.
• Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp.
  534 F.2d 89· 7th Cir.· 1976-04-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the patent claims were valid and infringed, and that the district court did not err in denying the motion to add excluded evidence.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
  518 F.2d 292· 10th Cir.· 1975-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Garton was not an indispensable party and that the "other insurance" clauses, after eliminating mutually repugnant escape clauses, established State Farm as an excess carrier and Mid-Continent as a primary carrier.
• Glynn Ross and Nancy Ross v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers
  513 F.2d 840· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-27 ·cited 10×
  Title IV of the LMRDA does not preclude a diversity-based tort claim for damages arising from election-related misconduct, even if the underlying conduct also relates to a union election.
• Ybarra v. City OF SAN Jose
  503 F.2d 1041· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that dismissing the action for failure to state a claim was improper, as the complaint alleged racial discrimination in zoning and land use that could lead to segregated schools.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Hollywood v. Broward Nat'l Bank OF Fort Lauderdale
  265 So. 2d 377· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-03-29 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment requiring a bank trustee to pay estate taxes from trust corpus, holding that the trustee was an indispensable party to the original County Judge's Court proceedings and that the Executor lacked standing to en
• Hazen v. S. Hills Nat'l Bank OF Tulsa
  414 F.2d 778· 10th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the action was a derivative suit, requiring joinder of the old bank as an indispensable party, and that removal to federal court was proper.
• Thomas v. Colo. Tr. Deed Funds, Inc.
  366 F.2d 140· 10th Cir.· 1966-07-20 ·cited 10×
  A principal is responsible for the fraudulent acts of an agent whom they have placed in a position to perpetrate the fraud.
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  357 F.2d 315· 10th Cir.· 1966-02-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment regarding insurance contribution, and that the interpretation of the insurance contracts was correct.
• Forbes v. Burket
  181 So. 2d 682· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-01-05 ·cited 10×
  Peter Craig Forbes appealed the dismissal of his suit seeking declaratory relief regarding his rights under his grandmother's will to a home that was sold by her court-appointed guardian while she was incompetent. The District Court reversed, holding that Forbes stated a valid ca
• Bry-Man's, Inc. v. Stute
  312 F.2d 585· 5th Cir.· 1963-01-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that McEvoy was an indispensable party whose absence required dismissal of the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
• SAX v. SAX
  294 F.2d 133· 5th Cir.· 1961-07-31 ·cited 10×
  A federal district court has jurisdiction over an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of trust assets, even if the trust situs is in another state, as long as personal jurisdiction over the parties is obtained.
• Peoples Loan & Fin. Corp. v. Lawson
  271 F.2d 529· 5th Cir.· 1959-11-03 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge holds that the insurance company, owning ninety-five percent of the claim, was an indispensable party and should have been joined in the action.
• Olson v. Miller
  263 F.2d 738· D.C. Cir.· 1959-02-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint on substantive grounds, standing, and indispensable parties, but correctly dismissed the action against the bank.
• Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Hon. Roger T. Foley
  237 F.2d 164· 9th Cir.· 1956-10-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a writ of mandate should issue to compel the dismissal of an amended supplemental complaint.
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Jay-Ann Co.
  228 F.2d 632· 5th Cir.· 1956-01-11 ·cited 10×
  The Commission administering the Health and Welfare Fund is an indispensable party, requiring affirmance of the judgment.
• Pedreiro v. Shaughnessy
  213 F.2d 768· 2d Cir.· 1954-07-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization is a proper party in an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the APA, and that the Attorney General or Commissioner are not indispensable parties.
• Rodriguez v. Landon
  212 F.2d 508· 9th Cir.· 1954-04-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and thus the district court properly dismissed the action.
• Rogers v. Skinner
  201 F.2d 521· 5th Cir.· 1953-01-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the suit was effectively against the United States and that the Secretary of Labor was an indispensable party, requiring dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Carter OIL Co. v. Crude Oil Co. (oklahoma)
  201 F.2d 547· 10th Cir.· 1953-01-12 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the case, finding the suit to be one in contract to which the five-year statute of limitations applies, and that Grisso is an indispensable party if the suit is in equity for fraud.
• City of New Orleans v. Tex. & PAC. RY. Co.
  195 F.2d 887· 5th Cir.· 1952-04-04 ·cited 10×
  A contract provision fixing a railroad service charge is invalid because such charges are subject to change by the Interstate Commerce Commission and must be included in published tariffs.
• In re Escheat of Monies Deposited in United States Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Pa.
  187 F.2d 131· 3d Cir.· 1951-01-30 ·cited 10×·via Necessary And Indispensable Parties
  The court held that the United States District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the bribe money, and the Pennsylvania state court lacked jurisdiction to hear a suit against the sovereign without consent.
• Chance v. Buxton
  163 F.2d 989· 5th Cir.· 1947-11-04 ·cited 10×
  Mrs. West is not an indispensable party because she has no interest in the land and her potential liability on a warranty is negligible.
• Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co., Inc.
  140 F.2d 268· 2d Cir.· 1944-01-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff, as an assignee of a renewal copyright owner, is a real party in interest and can sue for infringement, even if other co-owners are not joined. The judgment must be modified to reflect only the plaintiff's share of damages.
• Coyle v. Skirvin
  124 F.2d 934· 10th Cir.· 1942-01-08 ·cited 10×
  A receiver appointed for a corporation is an indispensable party to a stockholder's derivative action, which must be brought by the receiver.
• Brooks v. United States
  119 F.2d 636· 9th Cir.· 1941-03-10 ·cited 10×
  A federal district court in a lower state on an interstate stream has jurisdiction to adjudicate the water rights of users in an upper state when necessary to fully determine the rights of users in the lower state, especially when all parties consent to the decree.
• Jess C. Andrew v. Hecker
  132 Fla. 759· Fla.· 1938-06-14 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld a chancellor's decision granting a bill in the nature of a bill of review filed by a land purchaser who was denied intervention in a suit brought by the land seller to remove deed restrictions. The court held that the purchaser, as the real party
• Johns v. Dannels
  186 So. 3d 620· Fla. 5th DCA· 2016-03-04 ·cited 9×
  An affidavit in support of summary judgment that contains conclusory assertions without a factual predicate showing personal knowledge and competence to testify is insufficient to support judgment, and damages awards must be supported by specific facts rather than conclusions.
• Henderson v. Elias
  56 So. 3d 86· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-03-02 ·cited 9×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Stardale LLC in a Florida probate proceeding, holding that the estate's amended petition contained insufficient jurisdictional allegations to bring th
• Oceania Joint Venture v. Ocean View OF Miami, Ltd.
  707 So. 2d 917· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-03-11 ·cited 9×
  Oceania Joint Venture sought certiorari review of an order denying reinstatement of its appeal, arguing that a prior dismissal order was void because entered by a single circuit judge rather than a three-judge panel as required by Rule 1. The Florida District Court of Appeal held
• Damaris Gonzalez v. Cruz
  926 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal based solely on the pendency of a state action was insufficient, but remanded for consideration of additional factors, including whether the insurer is an indispensable party under Rule 19(b).
• Frank and Marie Robertia v. Pine Tree Water Control Dist.
  516 So. 2d 1012· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-12-02 ·cited 9×
  The Robertias appealed a permanent injunction granted to Pine Tree Water Control District allowing it to construct and maintain a drainage easement across their property. The appellate court reversed, finding that the language in the Robertias' deed was insufficient to reserve an
• DeTORO v. Dervan Invs. Ltd. Corp.
  483 So. 2d 717· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-11-20 ·cited 9×
  A fiduciary dispute involving real estate transactions where attorneys and real estate agents allegedly breached their duties by appropriating a property contract for their own benefit. The court reversed a directed verdict and remanded for trial, finding that partnership status
• Melancon v. Texaco, Inc.
  659 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 9×
  The court held that orders denying remand and vacating a joinder order are interlocutory and therefore not appealable.
• Energy Coop., Inc. v. United States Dep't OF Energy & James B. Edwards
  659 F.2d 146· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in a timely manner.
• Durrant v. Dayton
  396 So. 2d 1225· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-04-22 ·cited 9×
  Durrant, as trustee and attorney-in-fact for an offshore trust, brought an action for breach of a real estate purchase contract. The trial court dismissed the action after the real party in interest (the trust's trustee) refused to appear for deposition, but the appellate court r
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Wencke
  577 F.2d 619· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-29 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over Sun Fruit and that the default judgments were proper given the defendants' willful refusal to comply with discovery orders. However, the permanent injunction was modified as it granted relief beyond the scope of the com
• City Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Simmons
  351 So. 2d 1109· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-11-09 ·cited 9×
  A bank trustee moved to dismiss a mortgage foreclosure action on the ground that the trust beneficiaries were indispensable parties under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.210(c). The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, holding that the trustee's motion was
• Ranger Ins. Co. v. United Hous. OF NEW Mexico, Inc.
  488 F.2d 682· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the absent claimants were indispensable parties under Rule 19(b), requiring dismissal of the declaratory judgment action.
• Evergreen Park Nursing & Convalescent Home, Inc. v. Am. Equitable Assurance Co.
  417 F.2d 1113· 7th Cir.· 1969-11-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the diversity action for failure to join indispensable parties, as proceeding without them would be inequitable.
• Hardy Lee Jamison, Jr. v. Memphis Transit Mgmt. Co.
  381 F.2d 670· 6th Cir.· 1967-08-02 ·cited 9×
  The mother of a deceased child is an indispensable party to a wrongful death action under Tennessee law, and her citizenship must be considered for diversity jurisdiction.
• Ward v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co.
  321 F.2d 775· 5th Cir.· 1963-08-15 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the suit, even against non-official defendants, was in essence a suit against the sovereign United States, which had not consented to be sued, and thus the complaint should have been dismissed as to all parties.
• Doherty v. The Mut. Warehouse Co.
  245 F.2d 609· 5th Cir.· 1957-06-18 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiff, as the record owner of stock, is the real party in interest and that a shareholder action to compel dividend declaration does not require all directors to be parties or fall under Rule 23(b).