Justiciable Controversy

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

• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bonwell
  248 F.2d 862· 8th Cir.· 1957-11-05 ·cited 10×
  A federal court has discretion to decline jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action when a prior state court proceeding involving the same parties and issues is pending and can fully adjudicate the matter.
• Laurence Massa v. Jiffy Prods. Co., Inc.
  240 F.2d 702· 9th Cir.· 1957-01-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a patent owner who fails to join an action concerning patent validity and infringement can be joined as a necessary party, and a default judgment declaring a patent invalid is permissible without additional evidence if the allegations are well-pleaded.
• Powers v. United States
  218 F.2d 828· 7th Cir.· 1954-12-16 ·cited 10×
  The District Court correctly held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit against the United States seeking a declaratory judgment regarding retirement benefits.
• Landers Frary & Clark v. Vischer Prods. Co.
  201 F.2d 319· 7th Cir.· 1953-01-22 ·cited 10×
  A creditor can maintain an action for declaratory judgment and coercive relief to set aside fraudulent transfers of assets, even if the debt is not yet due and before obtaining a judgment and execution.
• Tuthill v. Wilsey
  182 F.2d 1006· 7th Cir.· 1950-06-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the declaratory judgment action for lack of a justiciable controversy under the patent laws, as the core issue was contract interpretation, not patent infringement.
• Chudoff v. McGRANERY
  179 F.2d 869· 3d Cir.· 1950-02-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there was no justiciable controversy and no issue appropriate for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, thus discharging the rule to show cause.
• Am. Mach. & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co., Inc.
  180 F.2d 342· 2d Cir.· 1950-01-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the contract clearly granted the appellee the right to terminate and continue the business, and that alleged breaches did not prevent this termination or continuation.
• Delaney v. Carter OIL Co.
  174 F.2d 314· 10th Cir.· 1949-04-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appealing parties could not complain about the dismissal of another party's action, and their own counterclaims failed to state a cause of action.
• Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Gilmore
  157 F.2d 929· 10th Cir.· 1946-11-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the exclusion clause was not ambiguous and excluded liability for the loss, but that the issue of the insured's reimbursement obligation was a justiciable controversy for declaratory judgment.
• United States v. THE Antoinetta
  153 F.2d 138· 3d Cir.· 1945-12-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district courts had jurisdiction over forfeiture proceedings despite presidential requisitions and vesting orders by the Alien Property Custodian, and that a proctor's claim for fees against a seized cargo fund was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdicti
• Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Burroughs
  133 F.2d 536· 10th Cir.· 1943-01-20 ·cited 10×
  Assessments against pipe line companies' rights of way were void because the statute only authorized assessments against 'land,' and these rights of way constituted mere easements, not land as defined by Oklahoma law. Furthermore, the assessments were levied against the corporati
• Ahearn v. Mayo Clinic
  180 So. 3d 165· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-11-06 ·cited 9×
  Shawn Ahearn, a patient billed by Mayo Clinic for emergency treatment, sued individually and as a putative class representative for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Ac
• United Steelworkers OF Am. v. Cyclops Corp.
  860 F.2d 189· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-25 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' prospective contractual claims regarding potential future pension underfunding were not ripe for adjudication, but affirmed summary judgment on present claims and ERISA claims.
• Sciambra v. Graham News Co.
  841 F.2d 651· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a default judgment as a sanction for discovery abuses, but erred in calculating damages based on going concern value instead of lost profits, and that damages should be trebled before deducting settle
• Collins v. Horten
  111 So. 2d 746· Fla. 1st DCA· 1959-05-07 ·cited 9×
  The Florida Board of Conservation appealed from an injunction prohibiting enforcement of Rule 12, which extended the statutory closed oyster season to privately leased beds. The court affirmed that the Board lacked statutory authority to impose a closed season on cultivated oyste
• Freeman v. Altvater
  130 F.2d 763· 8th Cir.· 1942-09-28 ·cited 9×
  A general affirmance of a trial court's decree should be modified to eliminate adjudications that became moot or were unnecessary for the disposition of the case.
• Excess Ins. Co. of Am. v. Brillhart
  121 F.2d 776· 10th Cir.· 1941-06-23 ·cited 9×
  A federal court may not refuse to assume jurisdiction of a declaratory judgment action merely because another remedy is available or another suit is pending if the controversy will not necessarily be determined therein.
• People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Alonzo-Pombo
  307 So. 3d 840· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-09-09 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a breach of contract claim but reversed the dismissal of a declaratory judgment claim. The court found that the breach of contract claim failed due to a lack of alleged damages, but the declaratory judgment claim presented a justiciab
• Thompson v. Fla. Cemeteries, Inc.
  866 So. 2d 767· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-02-25 ·cited 8×
  In a declaratory judgment action regarding whether shareholders' contributions to a closely held cemetery corporation constituted loans or capital contributions, the trial court erred by granting a motion for directed verdict that effectively granted relief identical to that soug
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.
  968 F.2d 707· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the pollution exclusion clause requires a temporal element for 'sudden' and that 'damages' under Missouri law does not include equitable response costs. It also found that EPA demand letters do not constitute 'suits' triggering the duty to defend.
• Hudson v. Chicago Teachers Union
  922 F.2d 1306· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the union's fair share notice procedure (FSN-3) provided sufficient information to allow nonmembers to challenge the fee, thus satisfying constitutional requirements, and that the denial of class certification was appropriate.
• White v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh, PA
  913 F.2d 165· 4th Cir.· 1990-09-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal district court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment determining uninsured motorist coverage limits before liability is adjudicated, and that the insured failed to properly reject the default level of coverage under Virginia law.
• Goya Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc.
  846 F.2d 848· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The pendency of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) registration proceeding is not a proper basis for a district court to stay or dismiss a trademark infringement or declaratory judgment action.
• J.E. Davidson v. United States Dep't OF Energy
  838 F.2d 850· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Department of Energy's promulgation of medical and physical fitness standards for security personnel was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful under the APA, and that claims of discriminatory impact should be brought under relevant anti-discrimi
• In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings IN Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig. v. Exxon Corp.
  830 F.2d 198· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 8×
  The majority dismissed the appeal without prejudice, finding that a subsequent district court ruling mooted certain issues, thus divesting the TECA of jurisdiction. The dissent argues the TECA retains jurisdiction over other issues not mooted by the subsequent ruling.
• Portland Police Ass'n & Stan Peters v. The City OF Portland
  658 F.2d 1272· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the complaint does not present a justiciable controversy because the alleged injury is too speculative and conjectural.
• Partido Nuevo Progresista v. Gerineldo Barreto Perez
  639 F.2d 825· 1st Cir.· 1980-12-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in enjoining the counting of ballots, as the case did not present the fundamental unfairness required for federal intervention under Griffin v. Burns.
• The Commonwealth OF Puerto RICO on the Relation of Carlos S. Quiros v. Alfred L. Snapp & Sons, Inc.
  632 F.2d 365· 4th Cir.· 1980-10-09 ·cited 8×
• FRY Bros. Corp. v. The Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  614 F.2d 732· 10th Cir.· 1980-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a justiciable claim and that the Administrative Procedure Act does not create an independent basis for jurisdiction.
• Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n v. Dixon
  572 F.2d 557· 6th Cir.· 1978-03-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that subsequent state court orders and arbitrator's award rendered the case moot, requiring dissolution of the preliminary injunction.
• Taylor v. Abe Lavine
  497 F.2d 1208· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that New York's regulations prorating shelter allowances based on the presence of non-eligible lodgers do not violate federal law, as they reflect reduced need for housing space rather than an impermissible presumption of income or support.
• Edsel Heinlein and Clara Heinlein v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  216 So. 2d 473· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-12-10 ·cited 8×
  Property owners challenged the constitutionality of a county housing ordinance on due process grounds, alleging unauthorized property inspections. The trial court granted summary judgment for the county, but the appellate court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fa
• Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Edgar
  255 F.2d 455· 5th Cir.· 1958-05-23 ·cited 8×
  A state-created school district cannot sue the state or its officials regarding state laws that conflict with a federal desegregation order, as there is no justiciable controversy and no federal jurisdiction.
• New Orleans Pub. Belt R.R. Comm'n v. Ward
  182 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1950-05-26 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the lower court had jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment to determine the amount of wages due to Mrs. Ward, even after an award by the Railway Adjustment Board.
• Garrett v. First Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. of Vicksburg
  153 F.2d 289· 5th Cir.· 1946-02-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a plea of res judicata is not applicable when a party acts in different fiduciary capacities, and that a summary judgment is improper when breaches of trust are alleged and denied.
• Freeman v. Altvater
  138 F.2d 854· 8th Cir.· 1943-11-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the reissue patents were invalid because they claimed subject matter not patentable over the prior art and were not for the same invention as the original patent.
• Stark v. Wickard
  136 F.2d 786· D.C. Cir.· 1943-06-14 ·cited 8×
  Producers who are not members of a cooperative association lack standing to challenge the Secretary of Agriculture's order regulating milk handling.
• Meredith v. City OF Winter Haven
  134 F.2d 202· 5th Cir.· 1943-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the refunding resolution's provision for holders of unenforceable bonds should be applied to remit them to their rights under the old bonds.
• Honorable Jeff Atwater v. City OF Weston
  64 So. 3d 701· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-05-02 ·cited 7×
  Florida's President of the Senate and Speaker of the House appealed a trial court judgment invalidating a growth management statute (Senate Bill 360) as an unfunded mandate. The appellate court reversed, holding that the legislative leaders were improper parties to a declaratory
• Hillblom v. United States
  896 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the appellants' claims were not ripe for judicial review because they alleged only a potential future injury based on the United States' stated position, not a concrete and immediate harm.
• Collier v. Harvey
  179 F.2d 664· 10th Cir.· 1949-12-28 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the federal court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy regarding insurance coverage, even though a state court action was pending.
• MacNeil v. Crestview Hosp. Corp.
  292 So. 3d 840· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a class action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment on the reasonableness of hospital charges under Florida's PIP statute. The court held that without a private cause of action under the statute or a separately pleaded justiciable
• Accela, Inc. v. Sarasota Cnty. & CSDC Sys., Inc.
  901 So. 2d 237· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-04-15 ·cited 6×
  Accela and CRW appealed a summary judgment dismissing their complaint challenging Sarasota County's award of computer software contracts to CSDC Systems without competitive bidding. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs had standing as potential competitors to
• City Commc'ns, Inc. v. The City OF Detroit
  888 F.2d 1081· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff corporation maintained standing to appeal despite a temporary dissolution under state law, and affirmed the dismissal of antitrust and First Amendment claims.
• The Coastal Corp. v. Tex. E. Corp.
  869 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 6×
  An injunction procured by material misrepresentation may not be sustained, and a district court cannot dissolve its own injunction once an appeal has been filed, except to maintain the status quo.
• Weatherford v. The City OF Hialeah
  537 So. 2d 680· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-01-24 ·cited 6×
  A municipality cannot recover, in set-offs against periodic pension payments, more than the actual amount paid to an employee as a lump-sum settlement of a workers' compensation claim, when the settlement did not reserve such a right.
• Fla. Soc'y OF Ophthalmology & Fla. Med. Ass'n v. State
  532 So. 2d 1278· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-10-06 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Society of Ophthalmology and Florida Medical Association challenged a 1986 law expanding optometrists' prescription authority, claiming it was unconstitutional and infringed physicians' rights. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failing to allege a justiciabl
• Ozark AIR Lines, Inc. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd. & the Air Line Pilots' Ass'n Int'l & Arthur J. Schenk, Jr.
  797 F.2d 557· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined the Retirement Board's unanimous decision was final and not subject to reconsideration, thus no impartial chairman was required. However, the injunction against the National Mediation Board was improper as it lacked a ju
• Women's Equity Action League v. Terrel H. Bell
  743 F.2d 42· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court must first determine if the plaintiffs have standing and if the case presents a justiciable controversy under Article III, in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.
• Gordon v. Warren Consol. Bd. OF Educ.
  706 F.2d 778· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that allegations of a subjective chilling of First Amendment rights due to a covert police operation, without specific present objective harm or threat of future harm, do not constitute a justiciable controversy.