Rule 12(B)(6) Dismissal

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

• Smith v. Winter
  782 F.2d 508· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot, but the claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against local appellees for violating First Amendment rights was properly stated.
• Grunnet v. United States
  730 F.2d 573· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
• Ruderer v. Meyer
  413 F.2d 175· 8th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 10×
  Statements made by federal officials within the outer perimeter of their official duties are absolutely privileged from defamation suits, even if malice is alleged.
• Faulkner Advertising Assocs., Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp. IN U.S.A.
  905 F.2d 769· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-12 ·cited 8×
  A manufacturer's decision to increase its advertising budget, include that cost in the product price, and direct the advertising is not an illegal tying arrangement under the Sherman Act.
• Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth.
  895 F.2d 266· 6th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) is a political subdivision of the State of Ohio and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) is a labor organization, both exempt from federal jurisdiction under the NLRA.
• Elliott v. Warden Bronson
  872 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint, liberally construed, stated potentially meritorious due process and equal protection claims, and dismissal without leave to amend was an abuse of discretion.
• Sultenfuss v. Snow
  894 F.2d 1277· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while parole board members are immune from damages claims, the sua sponte dismissal of the due process claim for equitable relief was improper because the revised Georgia parole system raises an arguable legal question regarding a liberty interest.
• Ass'n OF Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Rodham Clinton
  997 F.2d 898· D.C. Cir.· 1993-06-22 ·cited 6×
  The Task Force is not an advisory committee subject to FACA because its members, including the President's spouse, are considered full-time officers or employees of the federal government. However, the status of the working group requires further determination.
• Int'l Union v. Covenant Coal Corp.
  977 F.2d 895· 4th Cir.· 1992-10-15 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction under LMRA § 301 to hear tortious interference claims against non-signatories of a collective bargaining agreement, and such state law claims are preempted by § 301.
• Blasband v. Rales
  971 F.2d 1034· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff has standing to bring a derivative action despite a merger, but has not adequately pleaded demand futility.
• Cito v. Bridgewater Twp. Police Dep't
  892 F.2d 23· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the New Jersey two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, N.J.S.A. 2A: 14-2, applies to Section 1983 claims, not the six-year residual statute.
• Barnes v. Sam R. Lehman, M.D.
  861 F.2d 1383· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the termination of workers' compensation benefits by a private insurer, even if based on a doctor's opinion and governed by state statutes, does not constitute state action for purposes of a § 1983 claim unless there is a sufficiently close nexus between the s
• Liles v. Reagan
  804 F.2d 493· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-04 ·cited 6×
  A state court judge is entitled to absolute immunity from civil damages actions for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction, even if those acts are later found to be erroneous or in excess of jurisdiction.
• Ulric Paul Giddings v. Chandler
  979 F.2d 1104· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 5×
  A criminal alien does not have standing to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to commence deportation proceedings under the Mandamus Act or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they do not fall within the 'zone of interest' of the relevant statute.
• City OF Bloomington v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  891 F.2d 611· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the City's nuisance and abnormally dangerous activity claims for failure to assert Monsanto's "authority or actual physical control to direct the use or disposal of its product past the point of sale."
• Pipkins v. City of Hoover
  134 F.4th 1163· 11th Cir.· 2025-04-17 ·cited 4×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that Officer Alexander's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the mall defendants owed no duty to the decedent under Alabama law.
• TV Commc'ns Network, Inc. v. Turner Network Television, Inc.
  964 F.2d 1022· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to support antitrust claims, including a properly defined relevant market, and that a company cannot monopolize or attempt to monopolize the market for its own product.
• Ann v. Garrett and Roy D. Garrett
  938 F.2d 591· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal because the plaintiffs' complaint did not, on its face, establish that their claims were barred by the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine or 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e).
• Arcade Water Dist. v. United States
  940 F.2d 1265· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Arcade Water District stated a claim for a continuing nuisance, which is not time-barred under the FTCA statute of limitations.
• Del. Valley Citizens Council FOR Clean AIR v. Davis
  932 F.2d 256· 3d Cir.· 1991-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that claims alleging direct violations of the Clean Air Act's statutory provisions, rather than violations of an existing emission standard or limitation within an approved plan, must be brought as petitions for review in the courts of appeals under § 7607, not as
• Awilda Arroyo-Torres v. Ponce Fed. Bank
  918 F.2d 276· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that no implied private right of action exists under the CTRA or 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) for an employee discharged for cooperating with a federal investigation.
• Monument Builders OF Greater Kan. City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Assn. OF Kan.
  891 F.2d 1473· 10th Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that venue was proper in Kansas for defendants located in Missouri, and that the complaint sufficiently alleged claims for conspiracy to restrain trade and conspiracy to monopolize under the Sherman Act.
• Gus W. Zielasko and Nancy Bowman v. The State OF Ohio
  873 F.2d 957· 6th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that section 6(C) places an impermissible burden on a voter's First Amendment right to support a qualified candidate of her choice.
• R.E. Davis Chem. Corp. v. Diasonics, Inc.
  826 F.2d 678· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 4×
  A lost volume seller can recover lost profits under UCC § 2-708(2), and the 'due credit' language does not preclude this. The tort of intentional interference with contractual relations requires more than knowledge that a breach is substantially certain.
• Heffernan v. Pac. Dunlop GNB Corp.
  965 F.2d 369· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 3×
  This case involves a dissent arguing that a jury's award to Danco for tortious interference with advantageous business relationships should be reversed because GNB's actions to collect a debt did not constitute direct or unjustified interference.
• Jerrold I. Patee, Jr. v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co.
  803 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 3×
  Male employees lack standing under Title VII to bring a claim of sex discrimination based on alleged discrimination against women.
• Middleton v. The Hollywood Reporter LLC
  137 F.4th 1287· 11th Cir.· 2025-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that California's one-year statute of limitations applied to the defamation claims, barring the action.
• Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. BAR Found.
  993 F.2d 962· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Massachusetts IOLTA program does not violate the First Amendment rights of speech and association, nor does it constitute a taking of property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Gwynedd Props., Inc. v. Lower Gwynedd Twp.
  970 F.2d 1195· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal adjudication of most of GPI's claims would not interfere with ongoing state proceedings, thus reversing the district court's dismissal on Younger abstention grounds for those claims.
• J.L. v. Soc. Sec. Admin.
  971 F.2d 260· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs can pursue claims under the Administrative Procedure Act for injunctive and declaratory relief, and under the Rehabilitation Act for damages, as the latter waives sovereign immunity for suits against the government. The district court's dismissal wa
• Russ v. Uppah
  972 F.2d 300· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 2×
  Parole board members are entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in their official duties, but parole officers are entitled only to qualified immunity for such actions.
• In re Lane v. Lane
  937 F.2d 694· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint stated a minimally sufficient claim for nondischargeability under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2)(A), but failed to state claims for constructive trust, conversion, or nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(B) and § 523(a)(4).
• The Talman Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Ill. v. Am. Bankers Ins.
  924 F.2d 1347· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Talman failed to establish third-party beneficiary status under Texas law because the contracts at issue did not clearly express an intent to benefit Talman, and a clause in the insurance policy prohibited third-party suits.
• Wolfe v. Commercial Union Ins.
  792 F.2d 87· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for an employee seeking benefits for injuries sustained during employment, and the Industrial Board has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims, including those involving allegations of fraud that would toll the
• Feick v. Fleener
  653 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the powers of attorney did not authorize the retention of counsel for the annulment proceedings, and the appellee's letter did not constitute a binding agreement or promise to pay legal fees.
• Hal E. Roach v. Reldan Trading Corp.
  321 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1963-08-06 ·cited 2×
• Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Del. Cnty.
  983 F.2d 1277· 3d Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 1×
  A district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the legal insufficiency of a federal claim is improper; such claims should be decided on the merits. A public agency's refusal to pay for housing, even if influenced by bias, does not violate the Fair H
• Martin v. Sgt. Earl Kelley
  803 F.2d 236· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-08 ·cited 1×
  Prison officials may reject inmate mail that could incite violence, and due process requires notice to the sender, but not necessarily through a formal regulation.
• Valery Kantsepolsky v. River Shores Ass'n, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-30
  The court affirmed and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part the motion to dismiss ADA claims and staying the FHA claims under the Colorado River abstention doctrine.
• Tiakoh v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because her complaint, despite some deficiencies, contained well-pleaded facts that plausibly stated claims for relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
• Lopez v. Garcia
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-02
  The court held that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1) cannot be used to relitigate old matters or raise new arguments that could have been previously presented.
• Erste Asset Mgmt.
  Del.· 2025-06-09
  The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of Erste's claim for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3), holding that the rule applies to fraud between parties that prevents a party from fairly presenting its case, not solely to fraud on the court. The
• Button v. McCawley
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-05-28
  The court held that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was denied because amendment would be futile, as all proposed claims were subject to dismissal.
• Horton v. Captain Gilchrist
  128 F.4th 1221· 11th Cir.· 2025-02-13
  A district court is not required to sua sponte allow a pro se plaintiff to amend their complaint before granting summary judgment.
• Martin v. Dejoy
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-01-29
  The court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.
• Dillard v. Geo Care Treasure Coast Forensic Treatment Ctr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-11-15
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights claims are time-barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations, and therefore the motion to dismiss is granted.
• Gray v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-19
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim under the FCRA because the alleged inaccurate Social Security Numbers do not constitute 'consumer report' information and the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a request for disclosure.
• Hattaway v. Apyx Med. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-15
  Plaintiff William E. Hattaway brought a securities fraud class action against medical device manufacturer Apyx Medical Corporation and two executives, alleging they made materially false statements and omitted material facts regarding the company's off-label product use and its f
• Cambridge Christian Sch., Inc. v. Fla. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-03-31
  Cambridge Christian School challenged the Florida High School Athletic Association's denial of permission for the school to broadcast a pre-game prayer over the public address system at the 2015 Class 2A Football State Championship Final, arguing the restriction violated the Firs
• Ellman v. Gualtieri
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-01
  The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment.