Jurisdictional Requirement

239 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Pacheco
  489 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-08 ·cited 108×
  The court held that Wharton's rule does not apply to charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1955, that wiretap evidence was properly admitted, and that the government did not violate the Jencks Act by failing to preserve interview tapes.
• Rogers v. Exxon Research & Eng'g Co.
  550 F.2d 834· 3d Cir.· 1977-01-20 ·cited 95×
  The court held that damages for pain and suffering or emotional distress are not recoverable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), but a jury trial is permissible for claims seeking monetary damages.
• Devine v. White
  697 F.2d 421· D.C. Cir.· 1983-01-07 ·cited 81×
  The Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must file petitions for judicial review of arbitrator decisions within 30 days of notice, and is not required to seek reconsideration first. Judicial review of such decisions is discretionary and limited to exceptional case
• United States v. Alfredo Fernandez "Chino" "Al" Alfonso
  552 F.2d 605· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-19 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that the government complied with Title III wiretap requirements, the Florida anti-wagering statute was not unconstitutionally vague, severance was properly denied, voice identification testimony was admissible, jury instructions were adequ
• Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Meese
  791 F.2d 1489· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the award of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act was timely and appealable, and that the government was not substantially justified in its defense of the entire case, warranting an award of fees for the whole litigation.
• United States v. Mills
  597 F.2d 693· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-25 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the issue of vindictive sentencing could not be considered on appeal because the appellant relied on an affidavit not included in the record and failed to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c).
• Eastland v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
  553 F.2d 364· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the thirty-day filing period for federal employees under Title VII is jurisdictional and not extended by agency failure to provide notice of the right to sue, but that federal employees are entitled to a trial de novo and may maintain class actions.
• Bialowas v. United States
  443 F.2d 1047· 3d Cir.· 1971-06-02 ·cited 65×
  The court held that a claimant must submit a properly executed Standard Form 95 with a sum certain and a signature to satisfy the administrative claim prerequisite under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Stebilla v. Anthony J. Mussallem, M.D.
  595 So. 2d 136· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-02-14 ·cited 61×
  Medical malpractice plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their wrongful death action based on failure to provide a corroborating expert opinion before the statute of limitations expired. The court reversed, holding that while the corroborating opinion is statutorily required, it
• Finn v. United States
  256 F.2d 304· 4th Cir.· 1958-05-28 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the information, though loosely drawn, sufficiently stated an offense by alleging facts that inherently included knowledge and willfulness, and that the jury charge was not erroneous.
• Gladys Caperton as representative of a class of Prop. owners having more than $10 v. Beatrice Pocahontas Coal Co. and/or Va. Pocahontas Coal Co. and/or Island Creek Coal Co.
  585 F.2d 683· 4th Cir.· 1978-10-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that appeals were timely because the district court never properly entered judgment on a separate document, and thus the time to appeal had not begun to run. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Fitzsimmons v. Yeager
  391 F.2d 849· 3d Cir.· 1968-02-19 ·cited 48×
  The court would affirm the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, finding that excusable neglect might apply to the petitioner's late filing under state rules.
• Mann v. United States
  399 F.2d 672· 9th Cir.· 1968-08-29 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for tort claims against the United States is not tolled for a claimant's minority and that general statutes apply to Indians.
• United States v. Long
  905 F.2d 1572· D.C. Cir.· 1990-06-22 ·cited 45×
  The court held that a defendant cannot be convicted of 'using' a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) without evidence of actual or constructive possession of the firearm. The court also held that a telephone call inquiring about drug availability, without intent to assert drug de
• Niziolek v. Ashe
  694 F.2d 282· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the Rose v. Lundy 'total exhaustion' rule does not require a federal appellate court to decline review of a district court decision on the merits of exhausted claims in a mixed petition when the district court opinion issued before Rose or so close in time as
• Arvil M. Ashley v. United States
  413 F.2d 490· 9th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 45×
  A Federal Tort Claims Act claim accrues when the claimant discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the acts constituting the alleged malpractice, not when the full extent of the injury is known.
• Santos-Martinez v. Soto-Santiago
  863 F.2d 174· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a notice of appeal failing to specifically name the appealing parties, using "et al." or "All plaintiffs," does not satisfy Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) and deprives the court of jurisdiction.
• Monark Boat Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  708 F.2d 1322· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act's (EAJA) thirty-day time limit for filing an attorney's fees application is a jurisdictional requirement that must be strictly complied with, and the application must be received by the agency within that period.
• Roberts v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.
  256 F.2d 35· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court erred by not considering the appointment of a guardian ad litem for minor children before entering judgment, and that the insurer did prosecute its suit diligently despite delayed service.
• Lunsford v. United States
  570 F.2d 221· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-31 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional and requires individual claimants to satisfy it, thus precluding class actions where unnamed members have not filed claims. The court also held that the defense of immunity under 33 U.S.C. § 70
• United States v. ST. Michael's Credit Union & Janice Sacharczyk
  880 F.2d 579· 1st Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the willful blindness instruction and the jury's finding of a willful violation and a pattern of illegal activity under the Currency Transactions Reporting Act, but reversed convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 due to a fla
• Horton v. Kyle
  81 Fla. 274· Fla.· 1921-03-08 ·cited 35×
  This case concerns the constitutionality of a drainage tax law passed during a special legislative session. The court held that the law was void because the required notice of its intention was not published in the affected locality at least sixty days prior to its introduction,
• Todosio Casias and Dorothy Casias v. United States
  532 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellant's medical malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations because it was not filed within two years of when the claimant discovered, or should have discovered, the alleged malpractice.
• Loya v. Desert Sands Unified Sch. Dist.
  721 F.2d 279· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a complaint arriving within the statutory period but failing to conform to local rules should be considered filed for statute of limitations purposes, and that the determination of whether a public employee's speech is protected by the First Amendment is a que
• Rooney v. United States
  634 F.2d 1238· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-31 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the administrative claim filed by Rooney was sufficient to confer jurisdiction for claims arising from both his fall and subsequent medical treatment, and that the Government was liable for breaching its nondelegable duty to ensure adequate safety precautions.
• Bell v. Veterans Admin. Hosp.
  826 F.2d 357· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant failed to name the proper party defendant within the statutory limitations period, and the complaint could not be amended to relate back under Rule 15(c).
• Martinez v. Trainor
  556 F.2d 818· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a motion to amend, alter, or vacate a judgment under F.R.C.P. 59(e) must state grounds with particularity to toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
• Blain v. The United States
  552 F.2d 289· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-28 ·cited 30×
  A class claim filed by non-plaintiffs does not satisfy the administrative claim requirement of the Federal Tort Claims Act for individual claimants.
• Osborn Levert Caldwell v. Martin Marietta Corp.
  632 F.2d 1184· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-15 ·cited 29×
  An action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure commences upon the filing of a complaint, without the additional requirement of diligent service of process. The filing of a complaint tolls the statute of limitations.
• Lindberg v. Hosp. Corp. OF Am.
  545 So. 2d 1384· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-07-12 ·cited 28×
  The Lindbergs filed a medical malpractice complaint against Hospital Corporation of America and three physicians but served the notice of intent to litigate after filing the complaint rather than before, as required by Florida's 1985 medical malpractice reform statute. The trial
• City OF Treasure Island v. Strong
  215 So. 2d 473· Fla.· 1968-10-30 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that property owners who failed to challenge special assessments for an erosion control groin system at administrative hearings or through injunction were estopped from later asserting lack of special benefits as a defense to foreclosure of assessme
• Monaco v. Nealon
  810 So. 2d 1084· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-03-20 ·cited 26×
  Monaco and Interstate Towing appealed the denial of their motion to quash service of process in a motor vehicle accident lawsuit. The court reversed, holding that the plaintiff failed to comply with statutory requirements for substituted service under Florida law, specifically th
• Estevez v. Gordon
  386 So. 2d 43· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-07-22 ·cited 26×
  The trial court possessed subject matter jurisdiction to order the return of money seized from a criminal defendant, and a failure to file a sworn motion does not divest it of jurisdiction.
• Genovese v. Shell OIL Co.
  488 F.2d 84· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the 30-day period for filing a Title VII action after receiving notice of the EEOC's inability to achieve voluntary compliance is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement.
• Print Carter O'Neal v. United States
  264 F.2d 809· 5th Cir.· 1959-03-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an oral notice of appeal, even if intended by counsel, is insufficient to perfect an appeal under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the appeal is dismissed for want of timely notice.
• Ephraim Isaac v. Harvard Univ.
  769 F.2d 817· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a state agency's waiver of its right to exclusively process a discrimination charge constitutes a 'termination' of its proceedings under Title VII, allowing the EEOC charge to be deemed timely filed.
• Jesse J. Avila ad Litem of Daniel Cardona v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  731 F.2d 616· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that an administrative claim filed by a father for his mentally impaired adult son, even without formal authorization, meets jurisdictional requirements if it describes the injury and states a sum certain, and that the father's subsequent claim for his own expenses
• Brandt v. Schal Assocs., Inc.
  854 F.2d 948· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the RICO claim for failure to allege a pattern of racketeering activity and that the taxing of costs was not an abuse of discretion.
• Reinsurance Co. OF Am., Inc. v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat (Administration OF State Insurance)
  808 F.2d 1249· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, as the defendant's actions did not demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause.
• Battaglia v. United States
  303 F.2d 683· 2d Cir.· 1962-06-04 ·cited 23×
  The court held that failure to comply with the "forthwith" mailing requirement of 46 U.S.C.A. § 742 is jurisdictional.
• Se. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. The Honorable William A. Herin
  357 So. 2d 716· Fla.· 1978-04-05 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a notice of appeal must be filed in the correct trial court within the appellate time period to confer jurisdiction on an appellate court, and that filing the notice in the wrong appellate court—even within the 30-day period—does not cure the j
• Lacy v. Chrysler Corp.
  533 F.2d 353· 8th Cir.· 1976-03-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the 90-day period to file a Title VII action begins to run from the date of the formal "Notice of Right to Sue" letter, not from an earlier letter indicating that conciliation efforts have failed.
• Winchell v. Lortscher
  377 F.2d 247· 8th Cir.· 1967-05-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that notice to a party's attorney constitutes notice to the party under Rule 73(a), and therefore, the plaintiff's counsel's timely knowledge of the judgment precluded a finding of excusable neglect for a late appeal.
• United States v. Elam Reamuel Temple
  372 F.2d 795· 4th Cir.· 1966-11-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an oral notice of appeal, even if transcribed, is generally insufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of timely written notice under Rule 37(a)(1), and dismissed the appeal as untimely.
• Madden v. Honorable J. Sam Perry
  264 F.2d 169· 7th Cir.· 1959-02-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court judge erred in entering supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law after the case had been dismissed and the appeal resolved.
• Sedgwick v. DeWitt C. Dawkins
  18 Fla. 335· Fla.· 1881-06-01 ·cited 22×
  In this ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court addressed procedural challenges to an appeal from a judgment rendered on the defendant's motion in arrest of judgment. The court held that the appeal was properly taken under the code, that no bill of exceptions was required for
• DeLUCA v. Long Island Lighting Co., Inc.
  862 F.2d 427· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-02 ·cited 21×
  The court held that it lacks appellate jurisdiction to review a judgment imposing Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 sanctions on an attorney when the notice of appeal is filed only in the client's name. The court also affirmed the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.
• Clark v. Honorable Jack H. Cook
  481 So. 2d 929· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-11-27 ·cited 21×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal granted a petition for prohibition against a circuit court judge, requiring dismissal of a tax assessment challenge brought by a property owner. The court held that the property owner failed to comply with jurisdictional prerequisites under Fl
• Burns v. United States
  764 F.2d 722· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff's letter to a Senator did not constitute a sufficient administrative claim under the FTCA because it lacked a sum certain for damages, and thus the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Nardi v. Nardi
  390 So. 2d 438· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-11-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the objection to the will's probate was timely because the letters of administration were issued prematurely, thus invalidating the shortened objection period.