791 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 518 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
910 F. Supp. 576·
M.D. Fla.·
1995-10-09
·cited 39×
The court held that the plaintiff stated sufficient allegations to potentially establish employer status under Title VII, but dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failing to allege sufficiently outrageous conduct.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding his mental capacity to file a timely administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
-
789 F.2d 307·
5th Cir.·
1986-05-09
·cited 39×
The court held that a prisoner's pro se complaint alleging intentional delay of legal mail, resulting in the dismissal of his civil appeal, stated a claim for the intentional deprivation of a constitutional right of access to the courts, not merely a negligent tort.
-
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.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants acted under color of state law to deprive him of constitutional rights, or that they conspired with the requisite discriminatory animus for § 1985 claims.
-
A pro se plaintiff's complaint alleging reverse racial discrimination and violation of agency procedures should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim, as specific overt acts were pleaded.
-
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
-
366 F.2d 617·
9th Cir.·
1966-08-24
·cited 38×
The court held that the Gregoire rule, extending official privilege, should not apply to a conspiracy to monopolize in violation of the Sherman Act, even if overt acts fell within official authority.
-
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.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the Williams Act claim for failure to plead scienter with particularity, but erred in dismissing the state law claims for lack of pendent jurisdiction when diversity jurisdiction was also alleged.
-
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
-
772 F.3d 1225·
11th Cir.·
2014-11-10
·cited 36×
Patricia Franza, as representative of her father Pasquale Vaglio's estate, appealed the dismissal of her maritime negligence suit against Royal Caribbean Cruises for medical malpractice committed by the ship's nurse and doctor while the vessel was docked in Bermuda. The Eleventh
-
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.
-
419 F.2d 1112·
7th Cir.·
1970-01-05
·cited 36×
The court held that the district court did not err in its procedural rulings or substantive findings, affirming the dismissal of the action.
-
116 F.2d 865·
4th Cir.·
1941-01-06
·cited 36×
The court held that a complaint alleging a principal cancelled an agency agreement in bad faith to avoid paying commissions, when the agent had instigated a sale, sufficiently states a claim for breach of contract.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under both CERCLA and RCRA, reversing the district court's dismissal under RCRA and affirming its denial of dismissal under CERCLA.
-
121 F.4th 179·
11th Cir.·
2024-11-04
·cited 34×
The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court properly considered body camera footage under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine when ruling on a motion to dismiss, and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
-
837 F.2d 304·
7th Cir.·
1988-01-12
·cited 34×
The court held that a district court's sua sponte dismissal of a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) requires a less stringent standard than a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), and that the Eighth Amendment claim against certain defendants was not frivolous
-
The court held that federal abstention is not appropriate in this case, as the appellant alleged extraordinary circumstances involving federal constitutional violations.
-
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.
-
601 F.2d 557·
Temp. Emer. Ct. App.·
1979-06-05
·cited 34×
The Department of Energy (DOE) is not required to be joined as a party in private damage actions under Section 210 of the Economic Stabilization Act, and ordinarily may not be joined as a full-fledged party except in specific circumstances.
-
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.
-
The court held that a forum selection clause in a collective bargaining agreement is enforceable, requiring dismissal of claims for breach of contract and collective bargaining agreement due to improper venue. It also held that employer policy statements do not create enforceable
-
A real estate broker's commission, contingent on settlement, is still payable if the seller wrongfully prevents the condition from occurring, and the broker is entitled to a trial on claims of breach of contract and fraud.
-
635 F. Supp. 2d 1339·
S.D. Fla.·
2009-06-24
·cited 32×
The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants Ventura and TB, and that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a monetary damages claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
The court held that the defendants, as purchasers of a debenture, owed no fiduciary duty to the corporation under New York law and that the corporation and its shareholders lacked standing or failed to state a claim under federal securities laws for alleged non-disclosure of mark
-
433 F.2d 1137·
D.C. Cir.·
1970-05-19
·cited 32×
A disappointed bidder has standing to challenge an agency's arbitrary or capricious action in denying a government contract, and such challenges can be resolved through summary judgment if no genuine issues of material fact exist.
-
The court held that a motion to dismiss, when accompanied by matters outside the pleadings that are not excluded by the court, must be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
-
The court held that the district court improperly converted a motion to dismiss for lack of standing (Rule 12(b)(1)) into a motion for summary judgment, and that the plaintiff's allegations, while potentially sufficient for damages, were too weak to establish standing for broad d
-
The court held that the agreement was predominantly for the sale of goods, making the U.C.C. statute of limitations applicable, and that tort claims for economic loss arising from qualitative defects were barred by the Moorman doctrine.
-
The court held that it has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals involving patent law, even if diversity jurisdiction is also pleaded, and that the appeal was frivolous, warranting summary affirmance and award of attorney fees.
-
The court held that employees must exhaust contractual grievance procedures, but the employer cannot use the employees' non-compliance with internal union by-laws as a defense. The court also held that allegations of the union's breach of its duty of fair representation, if suffi
-
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
-
752 F. Supp. 2d 1271·
S.D. Fla.·
2010-05-05
·cited 30×
The court held that the defendant's counterclaim for tortious interference failed to state a claim because it did not allege a business relationship with identifiable customers, only with the community at large.
-
664 F.2d 708·
9th Cir.·
1981-05-26
·cited 30×
The court held that state regulations creating preconditions for prison transfer establish a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this interest is not negated by a state tort claims statute providing post-deprivation redress.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim sufficient to withstand attack by way of affirmative defenses, specifically the statute of frauds and the Connecticut Statute of Nonclaim.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge most provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act due to insufficient allegations of actual or threatened injury, and that the remaining claims lacked merit.
-
620 F.2d 1159·
6th Cir.·
1980-04-15
·cited 29×
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege a constitutionally cognizable infringement of a First Amendment right, as their claims regarding the flooding of the Tellico Valley were primarily cultural and historical, not central to their religious practice.
-
A district court has jurisdiction to determine whether a claim to ERISA coverage has merit, and dismissal for want of jurisdiction is improper if the claim is not frivolous. The Westland Agreement is not an ERISA plan because it constitutes a bonus for work performed and does not
-
The court held that while the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, and therefore affirmed the judgment.
-
699 F.2d 230·
5th Cir.·
1983-02-28
·cited 28×
The court held that a hostile tender offeror owes no fiduciary duty to a target company or its shareholders, and a shareholder who loses their status during litigation lacks standing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend or reconsider.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 8(e).
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the procedural grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim, and vacated the judgment to allow for further factual development.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's pleading alleging a religious objection to AIDS testing, citing a state statute for exemption, is sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
-
A compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a) is not required when the opposing party's claim is dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.
-
The court held that while Wade's pre-termination hearing was constitutionally sufficient, his post-termination hearing claim requires further factual determination. Other appellants' claims were dismissed for failure to establish cognizable property or liberty interests.
-
The court held that the 1976 amendment to La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 23:1032 does not bar claims where exposure predates the amendment but manifestation/diagnosis occurs after, and that manufacturers cannot seek indemnity from executive officers for active fault.