Seventh Amendment (Right To Jury Trial)

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

• Lynne Carol Fashions, Inc. v. Cranston Print Works Co., Inc.
  453 F.2d 1177· 3d Cir.· 1972-01-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the arbitration award did not preclude the buyer from litigating the quality of the goods against the finisher, as the issues were not identical and the defect finding was not necessarily essential to the award.
• Hampton v. Magnolia Towing Co., Inc.
  338 F.2d 303· 5th Cir.· 1964-10-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding of negligence, and remanded for a new trial.
• Hosie v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
  282 F.2d 639· 7th Cir.· 1960-09-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that severing the issue of liability from damages did not violate the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial, as the essential character of the jury trial was preserved.
• Walton Hardin v. McAVOY
  216 F.2d 399· 5th Cir.· 1954-10-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's undisputed testimony and settled law established his domicile in Florida, thus conferring diversity jurisdiction.
• Bowie v. Sorrell
  209 F.2d 49· 4th Cir.· 1953-12-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while a separate trial on the validity of a release was proper, the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial on that issue.
• Ryan Distrib. Corp. v. Caley
  147 F.2d 138· 3d Cir.· 1945-01-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge properly set aside the jury verdict and entered judgment for the plaintiff because the patent at issue lacked invention over the prior art.
• Catherine and Frank Helminski v. Ayerst Labs.
  766 F.2d 208· 6th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 17×
  A plaintiff who can comprehend proceedings and aid counsel cannot be involuntarily excluded from trial absent disruptive behavior or waiver, even if their presence might evoke sympathy. However, a plaintiff unable to comprehend or aid counsel may be excluded from the liability ph
• Barrett v. Independent Order OF Foresters
  625 F.2d 73· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-29 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment and dismissing fraud claims, as no material facts were in dispute and the alleged misrepresentations were either unenforceable or discoverable.
• Empire State Ins. Co. v. Chafetz
  302 F.2d 828· 5th Cir.· 1962-05-09 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the attorneys were entitled to a fee award for services rendered prior to their withdrawal, and that the relevant Florida statute was constitutional.
• Senn v. United Dominion Indus.
  951 F.2d 806· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-08 ·cited 16×
• Marlowe Blake and Pam Blake v. Unionmutual Stock Life INS. Co. OF Am.
  906 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-30 ·cited 16×
  Claims for benefits under an ERISA plan are equitable in nature, and thus do not entitle plaintiffs to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, even when reviewed de novo. Postpartum depression, without proof of underlying organic causation, is classified as a mental illness und
• Rolly Weldon Hill v. The Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd.
  886 F.2d 1275· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the FAA has jurisdiction over pilot conduct that may endanger air commerce, even if the specific flights are intrastate, and that the FAA has the authority to suspend a pilot certificate for violations of Federal Aviation Regulations.
• United States v. Smith
  818 F.2d 687· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the $25 assessment imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3013 is a punishment, but its imposition does not violate the Eighth Amendment, Fifth Amendment due process, or equal protection. The court also held that the assessment does not violate the Seventh Amendment right
• Armster v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  806 F.2d 1347· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a motion to vacate its prior decision as moot should be denied because the cessation of the challenged conduct was voluntary and occurred after the decision was issued, and the case presented important constitutional questions that should not be expunged.
• Hudson v. United States
  766 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the taxpayer's return was frivolous and the Commissioner properly assessed a penalty under Section 6702, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors
  761 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the absence of a formal default judgment against defaulting parties did not divest the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act correctly mandates non-jury trials in suits against foreign states.
• Hyde Props. v. McCOY
  507 F.2d 301· 6th Cir.· 1974-11-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in an interpleader action where the creditor seeks to annul a fraudulent conveyance, and the district court's findings of fraudulent conveyance were not clearly erroneous.
• Cnty. Asphalt, Inc. v. The Lewis Welding & Eng'g Corp.
  444 F.2d 372· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury's general verdict and answers to special interrogatories were consistent, and the exclusion of consequential damages was not unconscionable as a matter of law.
• Pearce v. E.F. Hutton Grp., Inc.
  828 F.2d 826· D.C. Cir.· 1987-09-11 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim against one defendant must be arbitrated, while the claim against the other defendant can be litigated, based on the nature of the dispute and the parties' arguments.
• United States v. Tull
  769 F.2d 182· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the defendant violated the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act by placing fill on wetlands and navigable waters without a permit, and that the Acts were constitutional as applied. The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to
• Goar v. Compania Peruana de Vapores
  688 F.2d 417· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-08 ·cited 15×
  A plaintiff has no right to a jury trial in a direct action against the insurer of a foreign state-owned corporation, as such suits fall under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's exclusive nonjury jurisdiction provisions.
• Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc.
  565 F.2d 815· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-01 ·cited 15×
  A party that had issues of fact determined against it after a full and fair opportunity to litigate them in a non-jury trial is collaterally estopped from obtaining a jury trial of the same issues in a subsequent suit.
• Oglesby v. Terminal Transp. Co., Inc.
  543 F.2d 1111· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that an unsworn statement and a mere suspicion of impropriety are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment when a party fails to provide a proper affidavit.
• Finnegan v. Fountain
  915 F.2d 817· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that inconsistent jury findings on excessive force and good faith, and the improper submission of qualified immunity to the jury, require vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial.
• Kelly v. Matlack, Inc.
  903 F.2d 978· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury's finding of willfulness supporting liquidated damages was supported by sufficient evidence, and the trial court did not err in denying the motion for JNOV.
• In re Fibreboard Corp.
  893 F.2d 706· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's Phase II trial plan for consolidating 3,031 asbestos cases was beyond the scope of federal judicial authority, infringing upon state substantive law and separation of powers principles.
• Timberlake v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.
  729 F.2d 515· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 14×
  Orders refusing to stay arbitration are not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because such appeals would undermine the efficiency of arbitration and are not final decisions. The Enelow-Ettelson doctrine does not apply to mixed law-equity actions.
• Pinemont Bank v. Henderson Belk
  722 F.2d 232· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion for a jury trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 39(b), and reversed and remanded for a new trial.
• Gnossos Music v. Mitken
  653 F.2d 117· 4th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial when copyright owners seek minimum statutory damages for infringement, as this involves legal rights and remedies analogous to common law actions.
• In re Gartenberg
  636 F.2d 16· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-09 ·cited 14×
  A shareholder seeking recovery of excessive advisory fees under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which is an equitable action for restitution, is not entitled to a jury trial.
• United Press Ass'ns v. Charles
  245 F.2d 21· 9th Cir.· 1957-03-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred by ordering a jury trial sua sponte after the parties had waived their right to a jury, and by failing to make specific factual findings as required by Rule 52(a).
• In re Hallahan v. Hallahan
  936 F.2d 1496· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the restrictive covenant was enforceable under Missouri law, the damages were sufficiently proven, and the debtor had no right to a jury trial in the bankruptcy court for a dischargeability proceeding.
• Richard v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  853 F.2d 1258· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-07 ·cited 13×
  The court held that resubmitting a jury verdict form for reconsideration of answers, even if potentially inconsistent, is within the trial judge's discretion, provided there is no view of the case that makes the answers consistent.
• Gardco Mfg., Inc. v. Herst Lighting Co.
  820 F.2d 1209· Fed. Cir.· 1987-06-08 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in separating the equitable issue of inequitable conduct for a non-jury trial before the jury trial on infringement and validity, and that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
• Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Hendrix
  565 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-11 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the jury's finding that the equipment lease agreements were usurious loan agreements was supported by sufficient evidence and that the waiver of jury trial clause was invalid.
• United States v. Long
  537 F.2d 1151· 4th Cir.· 1975-10-28 ·cited 13×
  In a suit brought by the Attorney General under Section 813 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, general monetary damages cannot be awarded to individual victims of discrimination, as the statute authorizes only 'preventive relief' which is equitable in nature.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Winnemore
  413 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-23 ·cited 13×
  The court held that submitting the issue of rescission to a jury was permissible under federal rules, but reversed due to erroneous jury instructions regarding misrepresentation in an insurance application.
• Therese A. Farber v. Massillon Bd. OF Educ.
  917 F.2d 1391· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in remitting the jury's ADEA award, denying front pay and appointment without sufficient justification, and improperly dismissing the § 1983 claim. The court also found clear error in the Title VII findings regarding pretext.
• Mr. and Mrs. Floyd Brock v. Merrell DOW Pharms., Inc.
  884 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-08 ·cited 12×
• Kladis v. Brezek
  823 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in altering the judgment to enter judgment for the defendants on the claim that the plaintiff was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, as no constitutional right requires such notification.
• Roscello v. Sw. Airlines Co. & Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
  726 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial on his fair representation claim and on factual issues common to both his wrongful discharge and fair representation claims, and that the denial of this right was not harmless error.
• Feinstein v. Mass. Gen. Hosp.
  643 F.2d 880· 1st Cir.· 1981-03-10 ·cited 12×
  Federal courts sitting in diversity must apply Massachusetts' medical malpractice statute, including its tribunal screening and bond requirements, as they are substantive state law under the Rules of Decision Act and Erie doctrine.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. NEW London Enters., Ltd.
  619 F.2d 1099· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists for Georgia confirmation proceedings under 12 U.S.C. § 1819, and that there is no right to a jury trial in such proceedings.
• Grayson v. The Wickes Corp.
  607 F.2d 1194· 7th Cir.· 1979-09-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court applied an erroneous and unrealistic burden of proof to the plaintiff's Title VII complaint, warranting reversal and remand.
• Azalea Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. Burton H. Hanft
  540 F.2d 713· 4th Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 12×
  The court determined the distribution of fees from pending client matters for a dissolved professional law association between its two shareholders.
• First Wis. Nat'l Bank of Rice Lake v. Klapmeier
  526 F.2d 77· 8th Cir.· 1975-11-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a timely jury trial demand can be made for new issues raised in an amended pleading, even if the original pleading did not include such a demand.
• Staplin v. Mar. Overseas Corp.
  519 F.2d 969· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district judge improperly reduced a jury's award for lost wages and ordered judgment entered for the full jury verdict.
• Bruce v. Hon. Luther Bohanon
  436 F.2d 733· 10th Cir.· 1970-12-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioners have a constitutional right to a jury trial for Count I, which sounds in tort for misappropriation of confidential business information, and the trial judge erred in denying this right.
• Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co.
  427 F.2d 1273· 3d Cir.· 1970-07-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was properly denied for failing to state specific grounds, and that a motion for a new trial was properly denied as untimely filed and lacking merit.
• Vance W. Williams v. Tide Water Associated OIL Co.
  227 F.2d 791· 9th Cir.· 1955-11-25 ·cited 12×
  A seaman can combine claims for unseaworthiness and negligence in a single civil suit under diversity jurisdiction, preserving the right to a jury trial.