Seventh Amendment (Right To Jury Trial)

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

• Mercer v. Long MFG. N. C., Inc.
  671 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 25×
  A party does not waive the right to complain of inconsistent special verdicts under F.R.Civ.P. 49(a) by failing to move for resubmission to the jury.
• Pons v. Lorillard
  549 F.2d 950· 4th Cir.· 1977-02-02 ·cited 25×
• In re Innotron Diagnostics
  800 F.2d 1077· Fed. Cir.· 1986-08-27 ·cited 24×
  The Federal Circuit held that it has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for writ of mandamus concerning the separation of patent issues for trial, even when intertwined with antitrust claims, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering such separation.
• United States v. Dudley
  739 F.2d 175· 4th Cir.· 1984-07-23 ·cited 24×
  A restitution order under 18 U.S.C. § 3579 does not abate upon the defendant's death pending appeal, as it serves a predominantly compensatory purpose for the victim, unlike purely penal sanctions. Furthermore, the Seventh Amendment jury trial right does not apply here because no
• Forrest Bugher v. Feightner
  722 F.2d 1356· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 24×
  A suit by trustees against an employer for contractual obligations under ERISA § 502(a)(3) is a legal action, not equitable, and thus carries a right to a jury trial.
• In re Diamond Door Co. v. Lane-Stanton Lumber Co.
  505 F.2d 1199· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the summary judgment procedure under Rule 56 is applicable in bankruptcy proceedings, even with a jury demand, and that the debtor's admissions established the elements of a preferential transfer.
• Smith v. Reinauer OIL Transp., Inc.
  256 F.2d 646· 1st Cir.· 1958-06-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff was not supported by sufficient evidence of the employer's negligence under the Jones Act, and thus the judgment notwithstanding the verdict was proper.
• Great N. Life Ins. Co. v. Vince
  118 F.2d 232· 6th Cir.· 1941-03-11 ·cited 24×
  False representations in an insurance application regarding material health issues, made with intent to deceive, render the policy void under Michigan law, and such issues can be resolved via declaratory judgment.
• In re United Mo. Bank OF Kan. City, N.A.
  901 F.2d 1449· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-23 ·cited 23×
  A bankruptcy judge lacks the statutory authority to conduct jury trials in a core bankruptcy proceeding alleging preferential transfers.
• Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co.
  469 F.2d 897· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-21 ·cited 23×
  The court held that plaintiffs could not unilaterally withdraw their jury trial demands by amending their complaints to invoke admiralty jurisdiction under Rule 9(h) without complying with Rule 39(a)'s consent requirements.
• Holloway v. A.L. Lockhart
  813 F.2d 874· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a local rule conditioning discovery on leave of court for prisoner petitions is invalid because it conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that summary judgment was inappropriate due to genuine issues of material fact and insufficient discover
• Wood v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  807 F.2d 493· 6th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Hamady was not a successor employer bound by the collective bargaining agreement and that there was insufficient evidence to vacate the arbitration award due to a union's alleged breach of its duty of fair representation.
• In re Itel Securities Litigation. I. Walton Bader v. Itel Corp.
  791 F.2d 672· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to impose sanctions for bad faith conduct, even after settlement, and that the attorney's actions warranted sanctions under the court's inherent power, Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• Ford v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  740 F.2d 374· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 22×
  The Magistrates Act does not authorize a district court to refer a prisoner's civil rights action to a United States magistrate for a jury trial without the parties' consent.
• Harlin J. Wall v. United States
  592 F.2d 154· 3d Cir.· 1979-01-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was improperly granted based on a local rule, and the plaintiff's new trial motion should have been considered on its merits.
• Rosenthal & Co. v. Bagley
  581 F.2d 1258· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a commodities brokerage firm must exhaust its administrative remedies before seeking to enjoin Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) reparations proceedings on constitutional grounds.
• Mathes v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  576 F.2d 70· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that taxpayers cannot devalue Federal Reserve notes by reporting income in 'Statutory Dollars' and that there is no right to a jury trial in the Tax Court.
• Local 783, Allied Indus. Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  471 F.2d 751· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-05 ·cited 22×
• The Oneida Indian Nation OF NEW York State v. The Cnty. OF Oneida
  464 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 22×
  The court should interpret "arising under" jurisdiction broadly for Indian tribes under 28 U.S.C. § 1362, allowing federal court adjudication of treaty-based claims.
• Mattison v. Dallas Carrier Corp.
  947 F.2d 95· 4th Cir.· 1991-10-11 ·cited 21×
  The court held that South Carolina's law for awarding punitive damages, as applied in a federal diversity case, violates the Due Process Clause due to its lack of meaningful standards, allowing juries unconstrained discretion.
• Wade v. Orange Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  844 F.2d 951· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-11 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a jury's verdict on common factual issues in legal claims precludes a contrary finding by the court on equitable claims, and that the denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
• In re N-500L Cases. Cornhill Ins. Co. Ltd.
  691 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that appellants had a right to a jury trial on the issue of their insured's negligence liability, but waived their right to a jury trial on the issue of proportionate fault among the tortfeasors.
• Lenwood Williams, Jr. v. The Shipping Corp. OF India
  653 F.2d 875· 4th Cir.· 1981-07-07 ·cited 21×
  The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 provides the exclusive basis for jurisdiction over foreign states, and removal under § 1441(d) extinguishes the right to a jury trial, as such suits were unknown to the common law.
• Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. AIR Line Pilots Ass'n
  373 F.2d 136· 8th Cir.· 1967-02-23 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the System Board of Adjustment's award of reinstatement is final and binding, and the district court correctly denied a de novo review of this portion of the award.
• Phillips v. Alan C. Kaplus & the Johnson Collection, Inc.
  764 F.2d 807· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the transaction did not involve a security under federal or Florida securities laws, and therefore reversed the award of attorneys' fees under the Florida Securities Act. It also affirmed the denial of a jury trial.
• Irving M. Rosen in Reorganization of Bermec Corp. v. Dick
  639 F.2d 82· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-30 ·cited 20×
  A co-defendant may rely on another party's jury demand only to the extent of the issues embraced by that demand, and not for issues with which the demanding party is unconnected.
• DiANTONIO v. Northampton-Accomack Mem'l Hosp. & Gene Myers
  628 F.2d 287· 4th Cir.· 1980-08-26 ·cited 20×
  The Virginia Medical Malpractice Act's notice, panel review, and opinion admissibility provisions apply in federal diversity actions, as they are intimately bound up with state substantive rights and policies.
• Delmar Lee Watson v. Dolph Briscoe
  554 F.2d 650· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that claims seeking restoration of good time credits or immediate parole review are habeas corpus claims requiring exhaustion of state remedies, while claims challenging conditions of confinement may proceed. Claims of medical staff negligence do not rise to a cons
• Wilson v. Nooter Corp.
  475 F.2d 497· 1st Cir.· 1973-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the question of whether the crane operators were Nooter's borrowed servants should have been submitted to the jury, as the evidence allowed for conflicting inferences regarding control.
• Gefen v. United States
  400 F.2d 476· 5th Cir.· 1968-08-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a taxpayer is not entitled to a jury trial in a tax foreclosure action and affirmed the finding that the taxpayer willfully failed to pay over withholding and FICA taxes as a responsible corporate officer.
• Reuben Klein and Elaine D. Klein v. Shell OIL Co.
  386 F.2d 659· 8th Cir.· 1967-12-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial because their action was fundamentally equitable in nature, seeking specific performance of an executory contract, rather than a legal action to recover a debt.
• United States v. Potomac News Co.
  373 F.2d 635· 4th Cir.· 1967-02-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the statute authorizing seizure of obscene materials is constitutional and that the magazine in question was properly found to be obscene, with no procedural errors occurring.
• Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co.
  306 F.2d 461· 2d Cir.· 1962-06-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that when claims for maintenance and cure, Jones Act negligence, and unseaworthiness arise from a single accident, they must be tried as a unit, and the right to a jury trial under the Jones Act applies to all claims.
• Walker v. United States Gypsum Co.
  270 F.2d 857· 4th Cir.· 1959-10-05 ·cited 20×
  A manufacturer performing construction work for itself, even if not for others, can be a statutory employer under Virginia's Workmen's Compensation Act, making the injured subcontractor's employee's exclusive remedy a proceeding before the Industrial Commission.
• Miller v. Tenn. Gas Transmission Co.
  220 F.2d 434· 5th Cir.· 1955-03-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a trial court must exercise its legal discretion when ruling on a motion for a new trial, even if it has already entered a judgment.
• Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc.
  885 F.2d 498· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the Title VII, Section 1981, CFEHA, breach of contract, and fraud claims, reversing the directed verdicts and remanding for a new trial, but affirmed the directed verdict on the tortious breach of implied covenant claim.
• COX v. Keystone Carbon Co.
  861 F.2d 390· 3d Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 19×
  The court held that there is no right to a jury trial for claims brought under ERISA § 502(a)(3) because it provides only equitable relief, and that the plaintiff's state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress failed as a matter of law.
• Richardson Greenshields Sec., Inc. v. Mui-Hin LAU
  825 F.2d 647· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to amend a pleading is not immediately appealable as a final decision or under the collateral order doctrine, but the attempted appeal would be treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Smith v. The Consol. Mut. Water Co.
  787 F.2d 1441· 10th Cir.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in awarding front pay because the ADEA limits such awards to cases of willful violations, which were not found here.
• Sibley v. Fulton Dekalb Collection Serv.
  677 F.2d 830· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 19×
  A party is entitled to a jury trial in an action for damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as the Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial for statutory causes of action that create legal rights and remedies enforceable in a court of law.
• In re Maloney v. Plunkett
  854 F.2d 152· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus was appropriate to vacate a district judge's order discharging a jury and forbidding peremptory challenges, due to the exceptional burdens and infringement of statutory rights.
• Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.
  848 F.2d 1560· Fed. Cir.· 1988-06-09 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, holding that the appellant's constitutional challenges were meritless, his non-infringement claims failed to state a claim, the special master was properly appointed and conducted appropriately, and the patents were invalid due t
• Diamond Shamrock Corp. v. Zinke & Trumbo, Ltd.
  791 F.2d 1416· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-21 ·cited 18×
• Martin v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  756 F.2d 38· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional arguments were frivolous and that his income was taxable, affirming the Tax Court's decision.
• Keith Fulton & Sons, Inc. v. NEW England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund
  762 F.2d 1124· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act's (MPPAA) provisions creating a presumption of correctness for the plan sponsor's calculation of withdrawal liability violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process. However, the court affirmed t
• Funk v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  687 F.2d 264· 8th Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 18×
  Wages are constitutionally and statutorily subject to federal income tax, and taxpayers are not entitled to a jury trial in Tax Court.
• Drone v. Hutto
  565 F.2d 543· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a prisoner who demanded a jury trial in his complaint, asserting both legal and equitable claims, was entitled to a jury trial on the legal issues, and the trial court erred in denying this right based on a local rule suggestion.
• Kademenos v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States
  513 F.2d 1073· 3d Cir.· 1975-04-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's breach of contract constituted an illegal bargain, rendering it unenforceable.
• Dawson v. Contractors Transp. Corp.
  467 F.2d 727· D.C. Cir.· 1972-06-15 ·cited 18×
  A cross-claiming defendant in a negligence action is not constitutionally entitled to a jury trial on a claim for a 'Murray credit' because such a claim is equitable in nature.
• Mrs. Lealon (Lois) Cooley v. Strickland Transp. Co.
  459 F.2d 779· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-21 ·cited 18×