Jurisdictional Requirement

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

• Safeco Ins. Co. v. Rochow
  384 So. 2d 163· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-04-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the agreement between the parties was incapable of performance because the jury did not reach the issue of damages, and therefore the agreement was not binding.
• Bartlett Constr., Inc. v. Coastal Plains, Inc.
  353 So. 2d 892· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-12-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the notice requirement for summary judgment is not jurisdictional and that no genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
• United States v. Hillsman
  522 F.2d 454· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-05 ·cited 20×
  The criminality of using force against a federal officer depends on whether the act is legally justified under state law.
• Smith v. United States
  425 F.2d 173· 9th Cir.· 1970-03-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and the district court's attempted extension was invalid.
• Application of LePAGE'S Inc. (a Subsidiary of the Papercraft Corp.
  312 F.2d 455· C.C.P.A.· 1963-01-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant's failure to specifically set forth written reasons for appeal within the statutory period mandated dismissal.
• Nash v. Humana SUN BAY Cmty. Hosp., Inc.
  526 So. 2d 1036· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-06-17 ·cited 19×
  In this medical malpractice appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of Nash's complaint against a hospital and three physicians. The court held that while Nash's complaints were defectively pleaded for failing to allege com
• Timothy v. Hymen
  799 F.2d 1421· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed discrimination claims for lack of jurisdiction, transferred nondiscrimination claims to the Federal Circuit, and dismissed FOIA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Tilden R. Wilkinson v. United States
  677 F.2d 998· 4th Cir.· 1982-04-27 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a federal tort claim is barred if the administrative claim is not filed within two years of accrual, even if the plaintiff's counsel was unaware of the driver's federal employment status.
• Bawsey Blocker v. State
  90 Fla. 136· Fla.· 1925-07-10 ·cited 19×
  Bawsey Blocker was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims that the verdict was insufficiently supported by evidence and that the trial court failed to provide statutory notice to
• Williams v. United States Postal Serv. & John K. Wuertz
  873 F.2d 1069· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an amendment to a complaint adding a party defendant does not relate back to the original filing date if the new party did not receive notice of the action within the applicable statute of limitations period, and that the 30-day filing requirement for employme
• Hyatt v. Heckler
  757 F.2d 1455· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 18×
  The Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984 and Supreme Court precedent require vacating the district court's injunction and class certification, and remanding the case for reconsideration of disability benefit claims.
• McKEE v. McDonnell Douglas Tech. Servs. Co., Inc.
  700 F.2d 260· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the Title VII claim because a material issue of fact existed regarding whether the EEOC's refusal to accept the charge tolled the filing period. The court affirmed the judgment for the employer on the Equal
• Ewald v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  620 F.2d 1183· 6th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 18×
  In a deferral state, a claimant must either commence state proceedings or notify the Secretary of Labor of intent to sue within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act to utilize the 300-day notice period.
• Town OF Mangonia Park v. Homan
  118 So. 2d 585· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-03-04 ·cited 17×
  The Town of Mangonia Park appealed a circuit court decree invalidating its attempted annexation of appellees' lands. The court held that deficient notice of annexation proceedings did not bar appellees from timely objecting despite filing outside the thirty-day statutory deadline
• Tanguay v. State
  880 So. 2d 533· Fla.· 2004-06-24 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a circuit court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate a civil commitment petition under the Jimmy Ryce Act even when the state unlawfully detained the petitioner beyond his sentence expiration, provided the petitioner was lawfully in custody on th
• Robinson v. Crosby
  358 F.3d 1281· 11th Cir.· 2004-02-03 ·cited 16×
  A death-row inmate filed a § 1983 lawsuit two days before his scheduled execution, challenging lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdict
• Env't Res. Assocs. OF Fla., Inc. v. State
  624 So. 2d 330· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-09-03 ·cited 16×
  Environmental Resource Associates of Florida challenged the Department of General Services' denial of an administrative hearing based on late filing of a hearing request. The court held that equitable tolling does not apply to enlarge filing deadlines in administrative cases wher
• Magda Marin Piazza v. Awilda Aponte Roque
  909 F.2d 35· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellants' failure to perfect a timely and proper appeal within the prescribed time limits mandates dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
• Hirsh v. Crews
  494 So. 2d 260· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-09-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jurisdictional requirements of section 194.171, Florida Statutes, must be met by each individual class member, and a class action filed by representative plaintiffs who meet the requirements does not satisfy the statute for non-compliant members.
• Henderson v. United States
  785 F.2d 121· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that filing a state court action does not satisfy the Federal Tort Claims Act's requirement of presenting an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency, and that the cause of action accrued on the date of the accident.
• United States v. Gus Curcio
  759 F.2d 237· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the cross-examination regarding prior incidents was permissible to test the credibility of the defense witnesses, and that the jurisdictional requirement of the Hobbs Act was met.
• Nilsen v. The City OF Moss Point
  674 F.2d 379· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 16×
• Morrow v. Wood
  126 F.2d 1021· 5th Cir.· 1942-03-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed because the notice of appeal was filed too late and the record was not timely filed. The timely filing of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement.
• Jacksonville v. Charles S. Adams de bonis non cum testamento annexo of John S. Adams
  27 Fla. 443· Fla.· 1891-01-01 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an ejectment action brought by an administrator to recover a strip of land from a railroad company that occupied it without proper condemnation proceedings. The court held that ejectment may be maintained against a railroad corporation to recove
• United States v. McKENNA
  889 F.2d 1168· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendants' extortionate conduct had a sufficient effect on interstate commerce to satisfy the Hobbs Act's jurisdictional requirement, and that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment or in excluding certain medical te
• Baker v. Raulie
  879 F.2d 1396· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an attorney's busy schedule does not constitute excusable neglect for failing to file a timely notice of appeal, and the district court abused its discretion in granting an extension without proper notice to the opposing party.
• Hopland Band OF Pomo Indians v. The United States
  855 F.2d 1573· Fed. Cir.· 1988-08-30 ·cited 14×
  The Court of Appeals held that the Hopland Band's claims were barred by the 6-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501, because the claims accrued no later than 1967 and the statute cannot be tolled based on the Band's organizational difficulties.
• Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel
  799 F.2d 1409· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alaska Limestone's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
• Graves v. United States Coast Guard
  692 F.2d 71· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the exception to California Civil Code § 846 for consideration paid applies, and the government is not shielded from liability. It also held that the plaintiff's attorney's signature on the administrative claim was sufficient.
• Goff v. United States
  659 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal of a prior suit does not toll the statute of limitations for claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Owens v. United States
  541 F.2d 1386· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-14 ·cited 14×
  Where service of process is not made 'forthwith' and the delay extends beyond the applicable statute of limitations, the district court may properly dismiss the action.
• NOE v. Laurel True
  507 F.2d 9· 6th Cir.· 1974-12-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a single-judge district court erred in dismissing a complaint seeking to enjoin a state statute without convening a three-judge court, and also erred in failing to rule on the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiff.
• United States for the Use of Celanese Coatings Co. v. Gullard
  504 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-17 ·cited 14×
  A Miller Act surety can appeal an adverse judgment even if its principal does not, and the one-year statute of limitations is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived.
• Willa Dean Lathrop v. Okla. City Hous. Auth.
  438 F.2d 914· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed after the time prescribed by the rules, even without notice of the denial of post-trial motions, is untimely and deprives the court of jurisdiction.
• Gilliam v. Will R. Saunders
  200 So. 2d 588· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-06-20 ·cited 14×
  A Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of a complaint challenging the validity of a tax deed, holding that statutory requirements for filing proof of publication of notice before issuing a tax deed are mandatory, not merely directory, and therefore jurisdictional.
• Madden v. Int'l Org. OF Masters & Pilots, Inc., AFL-CIO
  259 F.2d 297· 7th Cir.· 1958-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's failure to comply with its own procedural rules in conducting a preliminary investigation was grounds for dismissing its petition for injunctive relief.
• Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Krist Nikollaj
  780 So. 2d 943· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-02-23 ·cited 12×
  The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles challenged a circuit court decision that quashed a driver's license suspension on the ground that the DUI citation's suspension reason was not clearly marked. The appellate court reversed, holding that while the citation's marki
• United States v. Tabor Court Realty Corp.
  943 F.2d 335· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-05 ·cited 12×
  The Third Circuit held that Carrier's failure to file a separate notice of appeal did not preclude the court from considering the validity of the assignment, as the issue was inextricably intertwined with Linde's appeal and the court's prior ruling.
• In re Pub. Serv. Co. OF NEW Hampshire
  898 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 12×
  The court dismissed the appeal because the appellants failed to file a valid notice of appeal after filing a motion to reconsider the bankruptcy court's order.
• Martinez v. United States
  728 F.2d 694· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a claim stating damages "in excess of $100,000" reasonably complies with the "sum certain" requirement, and an agency letter not containing specific language does not constitute a final denial triggering the statute of limitations.
• Brown v. Mead Corp.
  646 F.2d 1163· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-13 ·cited 12×
  A plaintiff who receives a facially valid right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, even if later deemed issued in error, is bound by the ninety-day filing period from that first notice, and equitable tolling does not apply absent specific circumstances not present here.
• Garrett v. United States
  640 F.2d 24· 6th Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the statute of limitations under the Federal Tort Claims Act begins to run from the date the claim accrues, not from the release of an autopsy report, and that filing a complaint does not toll the statute.
• Shipley v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  572 F.2d 212· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that secondary evidence of a certified mail receipt's postmark date is inadmissible when the receipt itself is not produced.
• Gulf Power Co. v. Stack
  296 So. 2d 572· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-06-25 ·cited 12×
  Gulf Power Company appealed a circuit court judgment dismissing its eminent domain action and denying its right to condemn property owned by the Stacks and Mayos. The court affirmed, holding that Gulf failed to comply with Florida's mandatory statutory requirement that a condemna
• Cosentino v. Local 28, Int'l Org. OF Masters, Mates & Pilots, AFL-CIO
  268 F.2d 648· 8th Cir.· 1959-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prior dismissal order, based on the Board's failure to comply with a subpoena and its own procedures, did not operate as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(b).
• United States v. Buffalo Pharmacal Co., Inc.
  131 F.2d 500· 2d Cir.· 1942-12-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the notice and hearing provision of the Act is administrative, not jurisdictional, and that the statute does not criminalize an agent's actions if the principal (corporation) is not convicted, reversing the conviction.
• Gonzalez-Bernal v. United States
  907 F.2d 246· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-03 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the appellants' failure to file a timely action in federal court after the denial of their first administrative claim barred their suit, and that the second claim did not present a new cause of action.
• Wardsworth v. United States
  721 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a claimant must present a claim for a sum certain to the appropriate federal agency within two years of accrual to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Snell Isle Homes, Inc. v. City OF ST. Petersburg
  199 So. 2d 525· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-06-02 ·cited 11×
  Snell Isle Homes and Cardon Corporation challenged special assessments imposed by the City of St. Petersburg for sanitary sewer, street paving, and drainage improvements. The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's validation of the assessments, finding that the City
• Mirabal v. State
  553 So. 2d 1297· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-12-12 ·cited 10×
  Appellant Mirabal challenged a dismissal of his tax assessment dispute with Florida's Department of Revenue. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Mirabal failed to comply with statutory jurisdictional requirements under Florida Statutes § 72.011, which mandate that a pl