Saving To Suitors Clause (28 U.S.C. § 1333)

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

• Jordine v. Walling
  185 F.2d 662· 3d Cir.· 1950-11-10 ·cited 68×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction over a civil action for maintenance and cure absent diversity of citizenship, even if joined with a Jones Act claim, because maintenance and cure is a non-federal maritime claim.
• Exxon Corp. v. Chick KAM Choo
  817 F.2d 307· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 34×
  The federal court should not interfere with Texas state courts' determination of forum convenience and the propriety of entertaining a case.
• Higa v. Transocean Airlines
  230 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1955-12-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a new issue raised for the first time on rehearing, which could have been addressed earlier, will not be considered.
• Wilsey Poirrier v. Nicklos Drilling Co.
  648 F.2d 1063· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-26 ·cited 13×
  An order denying remand of a case removed to federal court is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and mandamus is not appropriate absent exceptional circumstances.
• The Valley Line Co. v. Ryan
  771 F.2d 366· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-21 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred by determining the liability for Ryan's injury, as this deprived him of his right to a jury trial, and that the district court abused its discretion by reinstating the injunction against Ryan's state court proceeding.
• Jefferson Barracks Marine Serv., Inc. v. Casey
  763 F.2d 1007· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court erred in enjoining the state court wrongful death action, as the claimants' stipulation preserved the vessel owners' right to limit liability.
• Rachal v. Ingram Corp.
  795 F.2d 1210· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing the plaintiff to withdraw his jury demand and amend his complaint to an admiralty action, as the defendant had no independent right to a jury trial in the absence of diversity jurisdiction at the time of the amendment
• Famiano v. Enyeart
  398 F.2d 661· 7th Cir.· 1968-07-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal for want of prosecution was correct because the plaintiff's refusal to proceed to trial after the court denied his motion to try all issues in admiralty was not an appealable order.
• Skanska USA Civil Se., Inc. v. Bagelheads, Inc.
  11th Cir.· 2023-08-02
  Skanska USA, owner of barges that broke loose during Hurricane Sally in 2020 and damaged the Pensacola Bay Bridge, sought to limit its liability under the federal Limitation Act and argued it was entitled to have a federal court adjudicate the merits of all claims against it befo
• Metro. Dade Cnty. v. One (1) Bronze Cannon
  537 F. Supp. 923· S.D. Fla.· 1982-04-23
  The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the salvage claim, that the action is a valid admiralty claim and not a disguised interpleader, and that the statute of limitations is tolled or waived. The motion to dismiss is denied.