Seventh Amendment (Right To Jury Trial)

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

• In re BEN Cooper, Inc. v. The Ins. Co. OF the State OF Pa.
  896 F.2d 1394· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-07 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the adversary proceeding was a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction, and that the appellees were entitled to a jury trial in the bankruptcy court.
• Sisco v. J. S. Alberici Constr. Co., Inc.
  655 F.2d 146· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-29 ·cited 42×
  Reliance on a good-faith affirmative-action plan to remedy past discrimination is a defense to claims of unlawful discrimination, but a claim for retaliation based on protesting perceived discrimination may proceed to a jury trial.
• Hal Francis Rachal and Edward B. Hunnicutt v. Grover C. Hill
  435 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1970-12-03 ·cited 42×
  The court held that collateral estoppel was improperly applied to deny appellants a jury trial on their civil liability for securities law violations, and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment.
• Bonjorno v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp.
  752 F.2d 802· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 40×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict on monopolization and attempt to monopolize claims, and that the damages award was not tainted by the potentially invalid section one conspiracy claim due to the specific findings of the jury.
• Odessa Woods v. The Nat'l Life & Accident Ins. Co.
  347 F.2d 760· 3d Cir.· 1965-06-22 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while a directed verdict should have been granted, the failure to move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.) requires a remand for a new trial.
• United States v. Stangland
  242 F.2d 843· 7th Cir.· 1957-04-03 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Agricultural Adjustment Act's penalty provisions are constitutional and applicable even to wheat consumed on the farm, and that the statutory review process for farm marketing quotas is exclusive.
• Dunn v. Sears
  639 F.2d 1171· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial judge correctly interpreted Louisiana law and federal procedure, and that the jury verdict for the defendant was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Wilfredo Acosta v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
  717 F.2d 828· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-21 ·cited 38×
  Punitive damages may be awarded in strict products liability cases under Virgin Islands law, but require proof of outrageous conduct by clear and convincing evidence.
• Collins v. Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co.
  681 F.2d 1333· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by applying offensive collateral estoppel without a full development of the record regarding the plaintiff's reasons for not joining the prior action and the fairness to the defendant.
• In re Federal Skywalk Cases. In re Melanie Hanson Johnson and Gerard Stanley Johnson
  680 F.2d 1175· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a mandatory class action, if modified to permit settlement of punitive damages claims and provide credit for such settlements, would not violate the Anti-Injunction Act and could be properly certified under Rule 23.
• Arber v. Essex Wire Corp. & Walter F. Probst
  490 F.2d 414· 6th Cir.· 1974-01-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence did not establish a violation of federal securities law or state common law fraud, and that the appellants were not denied their right to a jury trial due to their election of equitable remedies.
• Terence D. Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp.
  78 F.3d 1523· 11th Cir.· 1996-04-01 ·cited 36×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's finding of liability under the Clean Water Act, dissolved the permanent injunction, and vacated the civil penalties and attorney fees. The court held that the "zero discharge" standard of the Act does not apply when compliance is
• Quinn v. Digiulian
  739 F.2d 637· D.C. Cir.· 1984-07-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that punitive damages are not recoverable for a breach of the duty of fair representation, but that federal courts have jurisdiction over LMRDA claims even if the conduct also constitutes an unfair labor practice under the NLRA. A jury trial is available for both L
• The Wash. Star Co. v. Int'l Typographical Union Negotiated Pension Plan
  729 F.2d 1502· D.C. Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 36×
  The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) withdrawal liability provisions do not violate substantive or procedural due process or the right to a jury trial.
• McCOY v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  696 F.2d 1234· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·cited 36×
  The Tax Court did not err in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute and in denying the taxpayers' constitutional challenges.
• Arthur Young & Co. v. United States Dist. Court
  549 F.2d 686· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate clear and indisputable error in the district court's class certification order, which separated certain issues for class-wide adjudication and reserved others for individual determination.
• The United States v. 1160.96 Acres OF Land
  432 F.2d 910· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-05 ·cited 36×
  A court-ordered remittitur, conditioned on avoiding a new trial, is improper if based on an incorrect legal standard, and acceptance under protest does not waive the right to appeal the remittitur's validity.
• Johnson Tsai v. Anne C. Rosenthal & Mound Motors, Inc.
  297 F.2d 614· 8th Cir.· 1961-12-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial on its own motion more than ten days after judgment and also lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial limited to damages only, as this improperly re-examined a jury's finding on proximate cause.
• In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. & Nat'l Union Elec. Corp.
  631 F.2d 1069· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge would hold that no case, properly separated into claims cognizable at common law, can be too complex for a jury trial without violating due process.
• Thompson v. Camp
  167 F.2d 733· 6th Cir.· 1948-04-23 ·cited 35×
  The court held that it has the authority to limit the issues upon remand for a new trial to a single issue, such as damages, when the error necessitating the new trial did not affect the determination of other issues.
• Pane v. RCA Corp.
  868 F.2d 631· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that state law claims related to an ERISA plan are preempted by ERISA, and that claims under ERISA for benefits or to enforce plan terms are equitable, thus not entitling the plaintiff to a jury trial.
• Nance v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  817 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in resubmitting an amended verdict form to the jury due to inconsistent answers, nor in allowing a late amendment to the complaint. However, the court reversed due to the district court's failure to include a question about the e
• Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  814 F.2d 731· D.C. Cir.· 1987-03-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellants were required to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing a facial constitutional challenge to the FTC Act in federal court.
• Downing v. Williams
  624 F.2d 612· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred by disregarding the jury's findings of fact, which were supported by substantial evidence, and by independently re-examining the record on issues of procedural due process and First Amendment rights.
• Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen v. Denver & RIO Grande W. R.R. Co.
  370 F.2d 833· 10th Cir.· 1966-12-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that amendments to the Railway Labor Act, enacted during the pendency of the appeal, limit judicial review of Railroad Adjustment Board awards to specific grounds, rendering the Board's determination of the award amount conclusive and precluding review of defenses
• O'Brien v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  293 F.2d 1· 3d Cir.· 1961-06-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a Rule 41(b) motion in a jury case should be treated as a motion for a directed verdict, and that the patent was invalid due to prior public use. The court also found that while it had jurisdiction over the unfair competition claim, the plaintiff failed to pro
• Morelock v. The NCR Corp.
  546 F.2d 682· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 33×
  The court held that actions brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) seeking reinstatement and injunctions are equitable in nature and thus not triable by jury.
• Green v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  804 F.2d 453· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-29 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or the denial of a new trial.
• Karlin Kelley v. Sheriff Tom Crunk
  713 F.2d 426· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be considered on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances.
• Lowell Palmer v. United States
  652 F.2d 893· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-07 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge believes the parties waived their right to a jury trial through their conduct and that the issue was not preserved for appeal.
• McFERREN v. Cnty. Bd. OF Educ. OF Fayette Cnty.
  455 F.2d 199· 6th Cir.· 1972-01-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a school board's discharge of teachers following a desegregation order, without applying definite objective standards, constituted unlawful racial discrimination, and that back pay awarded as part of equitable reinstatement is not a jury trial issue.
• Diederich v. Am. News Co.
  128 F.2d 144· 10th Cir.· 1942-04-30 ·cited 32×
  A state constitutional provision making assumption of risk a question of fact for the jury does not control in federal court, as the Seventh Amendment preserves the common law distinction between the province of the court and that of the jury.
• Marshall v. Arzuaga
  828 F.2d 845· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-01 ·cited 31×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in allowing the jury to find adequate causation, asserting that the intervening negligence of a third party was the sole legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
• Yassin Hussein v. Oshkosh Motor Truck Co.
  816 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that section 1981's protection against racial discrimination is not limited to American Negroes and that the district court's dismissal of the claim was erroneous. The court also held that collateral estoppel should not apply to bar relitigation of issues decided i
• Sick v. City OF Buffalo
  574 F.2d 689· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-05 ·cited 30×
  Direct appeal does not lie from a magistrate's rulings or a jury verdict in a trial conducted by a magistrate unless the district court has reviewed and adopted those rulings and orders.
• In re Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark, Inc.
  536 F.2d 862· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a California corporation's petition for judicial supervision of its dissolution, when insolvent, constitutes an act of bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 21(a)(5), and that post-judgment motions to vacate and requests for depositions were properly denied.
• May Spach for Ro-Ben, Inc. v. Monarch Ins. Co. OF Ohio
  309 F.2d 949· 5th Cir.· 1962-11-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury verdict was supported by the evidence and that the trial court did not err in refusing a new trial due to counsel's conduct. The statute regarding attorney's fees was constitutional.
• Crews v. Central States
  788 F.2d 332· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the trustees' denial of a refund was not arbitrary or capricious because the contractual limitations on recovery and the distinction between mistakes of fact and law barred the claim.
• Domenico Ruggiero v. Compania Peruana de Vapores "Inca Capac Yupanqui"
  639 F.2d 872· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 29×
  The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) mandates that actions against foreign states, as defined by the Act, must be tried without a jury, even if jurisdiction could otherwise be based on diversity or federal question grounds.
• Henry v. Amalie Sneiders
  490 F.2d 315· 9th Cir.· 1974-01-11 ·cited 29×
  A default judgment entered due to discovery violations is permissible even without a written order, and a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial on damages after a default judgment unless a statute requires it.
• United AIR Lines, Inc. v. Wiener
  286 F.2d 302· 9th Cir.· 1961-01-16 ·cited 29×
  The court held that under the circumstances, the issues of liability and damages, including exemplary damages, are not sufficiently distinct and separable to permit separate trials before different juries without risking injustice and confusion.
• Moore et ux. v. United States
  196 F.2d 906· 5th Cir.· 1952-05-23 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the landlords were not entitled to a jury trial on the second trial because they waived that right by failing to demand it timely, and that the United States could recover both restitution for the tenant and statutory treble damages for itself.
• United States v. Sleight
  808 F.2d 1012· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that restitution ordered as a condition of probation under the Federal Probation Act may be based on the court's factual findings of loss, not solely on amounts alleged in the indictment, and that postjudgment interest is permissible, but prejudgment interest is no
• United States v. Florence
  741 F.2d 1066· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the restitution statutes are constitutional as applied and the imposition of restitution was not an abuse of discretion.
• Seoane v. Ortho Pharms., Inc.
  660 F.2d 146· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 28×
  The Louisiana medical malpractice review panel procedure does not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, nor the due process or equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
• Bourque v. Diamond M. Drilling Co.
  623 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-06 ·cited 28×
  The jury's special interrogatory answers were irreconcilably inconsistent, particularly the award of zero damages despite findings of employer negligence and plaintiff's limited contributory negligence, necessitating a new trial.
• Marie and Donald Ducharme v. Merrill-National Labs.
  574 F.2d 1307· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Swine Flu Act is a valid exercise of Congressional power and that the district court's judgment should be affirmed.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Charneski
  286 F.2d 238· 7th Cir.· 1960-12-19 ·cited 28×
  A federal court in a diversity action cannot entertain a declaratory judgment action that contravenes a specific state policy, such as Wisconsin's direct action statute for insurance coverage, as doing so would undermine state law and create forum shopping.
• Floyd v. Laws
  929 F.2d 1390· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a jury instruction on qualified immunity was not an abuse of discretion, and that a jury's answer to a verdict question, given in violation of explicit instructions, is surplusage and must be disregarded.
• Rhea v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
  767 F.2d 266· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the jury verdict and the district court's assessment of interest and attorney fees, finding no reversible error in the mediation process, jury instructions, or application of state law.