Notice Pleading

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

• Samuels v. Wilder
  906 F.2d 272· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed sanctions for a post-judgment motion but vacated sanctions for delay in withdrawing a claim, remanding for consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• Cayman Exploration Corp. v. United GAS Pipe Line Co.
  873 F.2d 1357· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and RICO because it lacked factual allegations of agreement, injury, particularity of fraud, or a pattern of racketeering activity. The court affirmed the dismissal.
• Blair v. City OF Greenville
  649 F.2d 365· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the dismissal of the 1980 suit was erroneous because it could encompass claims of post-judgment discrimination not barred by res judicata from the 1979 suit.
• Mrs. Ruby L. Porter v. ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
  354 F.2d 840· 5th Cir.· 1966-01-14 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court because the complaint invoked the Federal Employers' Liability Act, which generally prohibits removal.
• Tucci v. Smoothie King Franchises, Inc.
  215 F. Supp. 2d 1295· M.D. Fla.· 2002-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims for antitrust violations, intentional interference with business relationships, conspiracy to defraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and thus granted the motion to dismiss.
• Medalie v. FSC Sec. Corp.
  87 F. Supp. 2d 1295· S.D. Fla.· 2000-02-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the securities fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and the breach of fiduciary duty claim is barred by the economic loss rule.
• Haskin v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  995 F. Supp. 1437· M.D. Fla.· 1998-02-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's fraud and conspiracy claims failed to meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) and Florida law, respectively.
• Darel G. Taylor v. T.R. Props.
  603 So. 2d 1380· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-08-28 ·cited 12×
  A party seeking attorney's fees must plead entitlement, but may waive this requirement by failing to object when the opposing party seeks fees later in the litigation without prior pleading.
• Marcus v. Carrasquillo
  782 F. Supp. 593· M.D. Fla.· 1992-01-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that plaintiff's allegations of a racially motivated custom or policy of ignoring complaints were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, but First Amendment claims lacked factual support and punitive damages demands were premature.
• Curtis W. Caine, Jr., M.D. v. M.D. Hardy, M.D.
  943 F.2d 1406· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and in dismissing his suit under Rule 12(b)(6) without accepting his allegations of bias as true.
• First Union Brokerage v. Milos
  717 F. Supp. 1519· S.D. Fla.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while fraud claims generally require pleading justifiable reliance and intent regarding future promises, claims under Fla.Stat. § 517.301 do not require pleading loss causation and that breach of fiduciary duty claims are sufficiently pleaded by alleging a bro
• Cap. Cities Media, Inc. v. Chester
  797 F.2d 1164· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The majority's decision to vacate the district court's judgment and remand for development of a record on an equal protection claim is unwarranted because the complaint, even as amended, fails to state such a claim.
• Econ. Hous. Co., Inc. v. Cont'l Forest Prods., Inc.
  757 F.2d 200· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court improperly granted summary judgment, as a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the statute of limitations had run.
• Wilson v. Beebe
  743 F.2d 342· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a negligent deprivation of a liberty interest may form the basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but disagreed with the majority's finding of negligence liability based on a pendent state claim not properly pleaded.
• Truly v. Madison Gen. Hosp.
  673 F.2d 763· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the hospital's denial of staff privileges was not a violation of procedural due process or the First Amendment, and the findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.
• Bolding v. Austin
  575 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1978-04-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the complaint, which sought to have the federal district court assume supervision of the entire state prison system, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and should have been dismissed.
• Tex. Water Supply Corp. v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp.
  204 F.2d 190· 5th Cir.· 1953-04-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that no demand was necessary before suing the guarantors, and that the Texas Corporation's counterclaim was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Transcon. Ins. Co. v. JIM Black & Assocs., Inc.
  888 So. 2d 671· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-11-17 ·cited 11×
  Transcontinental Insurance Company appealed a partial summary judgment finding it had a duty to defend an insured against an unfair competition claim in a patent infringement lawsuit, while the insured cross-appealed regarding patent infringement coverage and recovery of defense
• Cont'l Baking Co. v. Vincent
  634 So. 2d 242· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-03-25 ·cited 11×
  Continental Baking Company sought certiorari review of state court orders denying its motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment on Vincent's negligent misrepresentation claim against Continental and Puigdomenech. The court denied the petition, holding that certiorari does
• Campbell v. Miller
  836 F. Supp. 827· M.D. Fla.· 1993-10-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to state claims under MSAWPA, FLSA, FICA, and FUTA, and that the complaint was not so vague as to require a more definite statement.
• The Ass'n FOR Child. FOR Enf't OF Support, Inc. v. Conger
  899 F.2d 1164· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-01 ·cited 11×
  The majority held that the complaint failed to establish ripeness, standing, and a claim for relief, as the alleged exclusion was by a third-party attorney and not directly ordered by the judge.
• Glenn v. First Nat'l Bank IN Grand Junction
  868 F.2d 368· 10th Cir.· 1989-02-15 ·cited 11×
  A party's request for leave to amend, made in response to a motion to dismiss, is insufficient to constitute a motion for leave to amend, and the court is not obligated to consider it.
• Glick v. Dr. F.M. Henderson
  855 F.2d 536· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-25 ·cited 11×
  The court concurred with the dismissal without prejudice, allowing for a new lawsuit to be filed.
• Tex. State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist.
  837 F.2d 190· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-08 ·cited 11×
  Appellants were not eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because they did not prevail on the central issue of their lawsuit, despite achieving partial success.
• Kiser v. Gen. Elec. Corp.
  831 F.2d 423· 3d Cir.· 1987-10-14 ·cited 11×
  The district court erred by dismissing the complaint without considering the plaintiff's motions for leave to amend, as leave to amend should be freely given and defective jurisdictional allegations can be amended.
• Bryant Heating & Air Conditioning Corp. v. Carrier Corp.
  597 F. Supp. 1045· S.D. Fla.· 1984-11-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that intra-corporate entities cannot conspire under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that a distributor's injury from a manufacturer's termination does not constitute an 'antitrust injury' for standing purposes. It also found that a manufacturer's sales allowance p
• Sanchez-Mariani v. Ellingwood
  691 F.2d 592· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were moot because the hearing she sought had been held, and her claims for damages and declaratory relief were not properly raised or were barred by sovereign immunity.
• Uptown People's Cmty. Health Servs. Bd. OF Directors v. The Bd. OF Comm'rs OF Cook Cnty. & the Cnty. of Cook
  647 F.2d 727· 7th Cir.· 1981-04-21 ·cited 11×
  The district court lacked pendent jurisdiction over the state contract claims because no substantial federal claim was alleged, and therefore, the court should not have ruled on them.
• In re Managed Care Litigation
  595 F. Supp. 2d 1349· S.D. Fla.· 2009-01-28 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying dismissal of the ERISA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but granting dismissal of state law claims due to ERISA preemption, and partially granting dismissal of the ADA's
• Eastman Kodak Co. v. Kavlin
  978 F. Supp. 1078· S.D. Fla.· 1997-09-09 ·cited 10×
  The court partially granted and denied motions to dismiss, retaining jurisdiction but dismissing some Bolivian law claims and deferring a personal jurisdiction ruling.
• Response Oncology, Inc. v. MetraHealth Ins.
  978 F. Supp. 1052· S.D. Fla.· 1997-07-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff improperly aggregated claims and misjoined defendants, dismissing claims that did not meet the jurisdictional amount or joinder requirements.
• Meenaghan v. State
  601 So. 2d 307· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-06-24 ·cited 10×
  Margaret Meenaghan was convicted of burglary and felony criminal mischief as a lesser included offense to arson. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed her felony criminal mischief conviction because the charging document failed to allege the amount of damage, which is an e
• Boudeloche v. Grow Chem. Coatings Corp.
  728 F.2d 759· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the employee's complaint, alleging intentional ordering to work in unsafe conditions despite knowledge of danger and denial of safety equipment, was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the 'intentional act' exception
• Wade v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
  693 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellants' complaint sufficiently alleged the employer's 'specific intent' to injure, thus falling outside the exclusive remedy provision of the Vermont Workmen's Compensation Act and surviving a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
• Corey v. Look
  641 F.2d 32· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the antitrust complaint and denying leave to amend, as the complaint stated a claim and the defendants were not immune under the state action doctrine.
• Donnelly v. Transp. Ins. Co.
  589 F.2d 761· 4th Cir.· 1978-12-22 ·cited 10×
  An insurer has a duty to defend its insured when the allegations in the underlying complaint, if proven, could potentially fall within the policy's coverage, even if the allegations also suggest excluded conduct.
• Seasongood v. K & K Ins. Agency
  548 F.2d 729· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the complaint did not conclusively demonstrate that the activities complained of were regulated by state law, and thus the McCarran-Ferguson Act exemption was not established, requiring reversal of the dismissal.
• Colton v. Swain
  527 F.2d 296· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-17 ·cited 10×
  A liability insurer's refusal to defend its insured, even with a no-action clause, estops the insurer from asserting that clause to bar a third-party action to determine coverage before a judgment against the insured. Furthermore, a § 1983 claim can be covered by a policy if its
• Roberts v. James Acres & the Vill. of Markham
  495 F.2d 57· 7th Cir.· 1974-03-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently stated a claim under the Civil Rights Act against the individual defendant, but the dismissal of the claim against the Village of Markham was proper.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Scenic Sportswear
  475 F.2d 1226· 6th Cir.· 1973-03-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the weight of evidence supported the Board's finding of an 8(a)(1) violation and that the Board's order was appropriate.
• Miller v. Woods
  185 F.2d 499· D.C. Cir.· 1950-10-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the record did not clearly show a lack of jurisdictional amount, and the issue was not properly considered below.
• Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Buford Rollin
  119 F.4th 881· 11th Cir.· 2024-10-11 ·cited 9×
  The district court erred by failing to analyze sovereign immunity on a claim-by-claim basis for the Poarch officials. The court vacates the dismissal and remands for further proceedings, allowing for amendment of the complaint.
• In re Managed Care Litigation
  150 F. Supp. 2d 1330· S.D. Fla.· 2001-06-20 ·cited 9×
  The court held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged RICO claims to survive a motion to dismiss, but dismissed ERISA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and RICO claims for failure to plead predicate acts with particularity, except for specific plaintiffs.
• Taylor v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.
  555 F. Supp. 59· M.D. Fla.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 9×
  The court held that negligence and strict liability claims were sufficiently pleaded, but the breach of implied warranty claim was deficient for failing to allege the plaintiff's status within the warranty's scope, and the fraudulent concealment claim failed to allege actionable
• Ranger Constr. Indus., Inc. v. Martin Cos. OF Daytona, Inc.
  881 So. 2d 677· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-08-27 ·cited 8×
  Ranger Construction appealed a summary judgment dismissing its third-party contractual indemnity claim against Martin Companies. The trial court denied relief based on Ranger's failure to explicitly use the word "warranty" in pleading, but the appellate court held this was an imp
• United States v. Vroman
  975 F.2d 669· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an indictment is constitutionally sufficient even if it omits or incorrectly cites the specific statute violated, as long as it provides the elements of the offense and fairly informs the defendant of the charges.
• Inst. FOR Sci. Info., Inc. v. Gordon AND Breach
  931 F.2d 1002· 3d Cir.· 1991-04-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings because the plaintiff's complaint alleged sufficient facts to raise material issues of fact regarding likelihood of confusion and the defendants' good faith in using the disputed phrase.
• Toth v. USX Corp.
  883 F.2d 1297· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that USX's unilateral leave policy, even if potentially illegal under the LMRA, could not be exempted from LMRA prohibitions because it was not part of a bargained-for collective bargaining agreement and thus did not qualify for the section 302(c)(1) exception.
• In re Waller Creek, Ltd. v. Waller Creek, Ltd.
  867 F.2d 228· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that separate construction contracts for a hotel and a parking garage, coupled with the parties' treatment of the projects as distinct, operated to "constructively sever" the properties, preventing a mechanic's lien from one project from attaching to the other. The
• Formax, Inc. v. Hostert
  841 F.2d 388· Fed. Cir.· 1988-02-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent the use of misappropriated manufacturing prints was an abuse of discretion.