Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal

116 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank OF Am.
  549 F.2d 597· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-27 ·cited 141×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the antitrust action based on the act of state doctrine and lack of jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffs should have been afforded an opportunity for full discovery.
• Roseann Michelle Gill v. Grady Judd
  941 F.3d 504· 11th Cir.· 2019-10-21 ·cited 122×
  A minor arrested for aggravated stalking after another student's suicide sued under federal civil rights law, alleging that Deputy McKinney lacked probable cause to arrest her and violated her Fourth Amendment rights by entering her home without consent or a warrant. The Eleventh
• Coy Ray Campbell v. Beto
  460 F.2d 765· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-18 ·cited 93×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to docket the prisoner's suit, dismissing it without an opportunity for evidence, and denying an in forma pauperis appeal.
• Chongris v. Bd. OF Appeals OF the Town OF Andover
  811 F.2d 36· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-12 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state federally cognizable causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as their claims regarding building permit revocation and victualler's license denial did not violate due process or constitutional rights.
• Virgilio v. The Ryland Grp., Inc.
  680 F.3d 1329· 11th Cir.· 2012-05-18 ·cited 66×
  Luis and Norma Virgilio brought a class action against Ryland Group and related development entities for failing to disclose that their homes in the Newport subdivision of Vista Lakes were adjacent to Pinecastle, a former World War II bombing range laden with unexploded ordnance,
• Yusuf Asad Madyun v. Thompson
  657 F.2d 868· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing several claims without proper consideration, particularly concerning pro se plaintiffs' rights in summary judgment proceedings and the application of collateral estoppel and mootness doctrines. Some dismissals were affirm
• Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp.
  759 F.2d 271· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-11 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the defendants' conduct did not rise to the level of outrageousness required for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law.
• Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez
  903 F.2d 49· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 51×
  A public employee's association with a politically disfavored individual, without more, does not implicate the First Amendment unless the employee's own political beliefs or advocacy are involved.
• Thomas W. Garland, Inc. v. The City OF ST. Louis & Manley Inv. Co.
  596 F.2d 784· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that physical invasion or appropriation is not essential to a claim of de facto condemnation, and that governmental action substantially interfering with property rights can constitute a taking.
• Scott v. Plante
  532 F.2d 939· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's claims, including those regarding involuntary medication, confinement without treatment, physical conditions, unconstitutional confinement, and procedural issues in hearings, and that the plaintiff's requ
• Montesano v. Seafirst Commercial Corp.
  818 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 37×
  The court held that while plaintiffs alleged a pattern of racketeering activity, they failed to allege an "association in fact" enterprise separate and apart from the pattern of activity, thus affirming the dismissal.
• Davis v. City of Apopka
  78 F.4th 1326· 11th Cir.· 2023-08-28 ·cited 36×
  In 2011, Timothy Davis shot and killed his 22-year-old son during a domestic confrontation in Florida and was arrested at the scene. After Davis was acquitted of murder at trial, he sued the City of Apopka under federal and state law, claiming the officers arrested him without pr
• Gaff v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  814 F.2d 311· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-20 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a shareholder alleging only diminution in stock value lacks standing for direct federal claims, but state law claims should not have been dismissed with prejudice.
• Sevier v. Turner
  742 F.2d 262· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that federal abstention is not appropriate in this case, as the appellant alleged extraordinary circumstances involving federal constitutional violations.
• McKINNIS v. Lt. James Mosely
  693 F.2d 1054· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the prisoner's claim was properly brought under § 1983, it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it did not present an identifiable federal or constitutional issue.
• Safeguard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Miller
  472 F.2d 732· 3d Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that dismissal based on governmental immunity was improper without a factual record, and that injunctive relief is not subject to such immunity.
• D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Tech. Sch.
  972 F.2d 1364· 3d Cir.· 1992-08-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that compulsory school attendance, the minority status of students, and the pervasive control schools exercise over students create a special relationship that imposes a constitutional duty on schools to protect students' liberty interests while in their functional
• Galef v. Alexander
  615 F.2d 51· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that federal securities claims under § 14(a) are not subject to dismissal under the business judgment rule when directors who are defendants seek dismissal. State law claims must be reconsidered under Ohio law regarding director interest.
• McLAIN v. Real Est. Bd. OF NEW Orleans, Inc.
  583 F.2d 1315· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that residential real estate brokerage activities in the New Orleans area, as alleged, neither occur in nor substantially affect interstate commerce, thus falling outside the Sherman Act's jurisdiction.
• RAY v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.
  836 F.3d 1340· 11th Cir.· 2016-09-02 ·cited 30×
  In this civil RICO case, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint alleging that Spirit Airlines fraudulently misrepresented a Passenger Usage Fee as government-imposed when it was actually part of the base fare. The court held that plaintiffs failed to
• Hydro-Tech Corp. v. Sundstrand Corp.
  673 F.2d 1171· 10th Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 26×
  The prosecution of a lawsuit, even if without probable cause and for an anticompetitive purpose, is protected by the First Amendment and immune from antitrust attack.
• Sacks v. Reynolds Sec., Inc.
  593 F.2d 1234· D.C. Cir.· 1978-12-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a custodial transfer of stock accounts between brokers, without a change in ownership or control, does not constitute a "sale" under Rule 10b-5, and that NYSE Rule 412 does not create an implied private federal right of action.
• DeMALLORY v. Cullen
  855 F.2d 442· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim regarding unsanitary conditions and dangerous inmate interactions requires more than a showing of negligence, but the district court improperly granted summary judgment without addressing the core allegations. The court also
• McGRUDER v. Necaise
  733 F.2d 1146· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 25×
  Prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages liability for actions taken within the scope of their prosecutorial duties, and the State is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
• Dwen v. Barry
  483 F.2d 1126· 2d Cir.· 1973-08-22 ·cited 25×
  Summary dismissal of a civil rights action challenging police hair grooming regulations was improper because the department failed to demonstrate a legitimate state interest justifying the restriction on personal liberty.
• Sundance Land Corp. v. Cmty. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  840 F.2d 653· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 24×
  Sundance has standing to seek injunctive relief under HOLA because its injury is a foreseeable consequence of the alleged illegal loan, but it lacks standing to seek damages due to the indirect nature of its injury.
• Green v. Amerada Hess Corp. & L.A. Stricklin
  707 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to remand because the co-defendant was not fraudulently joined, and therefore, diversity jurisdiction was absent.
• Donrich Young v. Grand Canyon Univ., Inc.
  57 F.4th 861· 11th Cir.· 2023-01-06 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding the university's failure to provide promised faculty support for dissertation completion, but not regarding the claim that the program was im
• Wolfson v. Baker
  623 F.2d 1074· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that nonmutual collateral estoppel was properly applied to establish the appellant's knowledge of the illegality of his stock sales, and that the in pari delicto defense barred his claim under NYSE Rule 405.
• Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery
  829 F.2d 729· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to establish injury to competition under the Sherman Act and Robinson-Patman Act, and that the Ohio antitrust claims were therefore also properly dismissed.
• John v. Honorable Michael J. Barron
  897 F.2d 1387· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that appellate jurisdiction for Rule 11 sanctions is lacking if the amount of fees is not determined, that judicial immunity shields a state judge from damages for acts within jurisdiction, and that appeals with perfunctory briefs are dismissed.
• Hernandez v. Denton
  861 F.2d 1421· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 18×
  A district court may dismiss a pro se in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous only if it lacks any "arguable substance in law or fact," and cannot dismiss based on credibility determinations of the allegations.
• Scott v. Plante
  641 F.2d 117· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying equitable relief regarding the conditions of confinement and vacated the judgment, remanding for further proceedings.
• Daewoo Motor Am., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  459 F.3d 1249· 11th Cir.· 2006-08-11 ·cited 16×
  Daewoo Motor America, Inc., a U.S. subsidiary and exclusive distributor of Daewoo vehicles, challenged the dismissal of claims against General Motors and others arising from a Korean bankruptcy reorganization that transferred Daewoo Korea's assets to a new entity (GMDAT), which t
• Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't
  855 F.2d 1421· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-23 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge concludes that the plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a "special relationship" between the police and herself, and therefore the police had no constitutional duty to protect her.
• Oscar v. Univ. Students Co-Operative Ass'n
  965 F.2d 783· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·cited 15×
  A plaintiff cannot recover under RICO for a decrease in property value or loss of use and enjoyment; only concrete financial losses to business or property are compensable.
• Jones v. Law Firm of Hill & Ponton
  141 F. Supp. 2d 1349· M.D. Fla.· 2001-03-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's domicile was previously determined in a related case, and the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing redressable harm for his legal malpractice claims.
• Bell v. Sheriff of Broward Cnty.
  6 F.4th 1374· 11th Cir.· 2021-08-02 ·cited 12×
  A five-day suspension with pay pending an investigation into alleged misconduct does not constitute an adverse employment action for purposes of a First Amendment retaliation claim.
• Gluck v. Unisys Corp.
  960 F.2d 1168· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the meaning of 'partial termination' in an ERISA plan should align with its meaning under the Internal Revenue Code and related tax regulations.
• Am. Waste & Pollution Control Co. v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.
  949 F.2d 1384· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-23 ·cited 12×
  This opinion is a dissent and does not contain a holding of the court.
• La Porte Constr. Co., Inc. v. Bayshore Nat'l Bank OF La Porte
  805 F.2d 1254· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the RICO claims were time-barred and that the district court should have dismissed the state law claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the federal claims were dismissed.
• W. Concrete Structures Co., Inc. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc.
  760 F.2d 1013· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 12×
  A conspiracy to engage in predatory pricing, where competitors cannot legally match the prices, is a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, not Section 1.
• Inez Chavez v. The City OF Santa FE Hous. Auth. & Emilia M. Martinez
  606 F.2d 282· 10th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that tenants of a housing authority have a protected property interest in continuing to receive housing benefits without unwarranted damage assessments, thus implicating due process protections.
• Parr v. Great Lakes Express Co.
  484 F.2d 767· 7th Cir.· 1973-07-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the third-party complaint, liberally construed, stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and thus the dismissal was improper.
• Monks v. Marlinga
  923 F.2d 423· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the dismissal because the plaintiffs failed to submit an affidavit under Rule 56(f) justifying their inability to present essential facts in opposition to the summary judgment motion.
• Barrientos v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. & David R. Barrientos
  911 F.2d 1115· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the parenthetical phrase in the deemer clause of ERISA does not remove death benefit plans from ERISA preemption, but only from the deemer clause's prohibition against state regulation.
• Finlator v. Powers
  902 F.2d 1158· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that non-exempt parties have standing to challenge a state tax exemption for Holy Bibles, and that the exemption violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Press Clause of the Constitution.
• Rocks v. City OF Philadelphia
  868 F.2d 644· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 10×
  Taxpayers who are not directly injured and have no special relationship with the injured parties lack standing to assert equal protection claims based on municipal contracting requirements.
• Collins v. Cnty. OF Kendall
  807 F.2d 95· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support an inference of bad faith prosecution, thus the district court properly abstained under the Younger doctrine.
• Misco, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp. & Alside
  784 F.2d 198· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed federal antitrust claims and the claim for wrongful inducement to breach a contract, but erred in its disposition of the breach of contract claim, which is reversed and remanded.