Seventh Amendment (Right To Jury Trial)

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

• Gonzalez v. State
  982 So. 2d 77· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-04-30 ·cited 11×
  Robert Gonzalez appeals his second-degree murder conviction and mandatory life sentence, challenging Florida's use of six-person juries in serious felony cases. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction but acknowledges substantial scholarly and empirical eviden
• Simon v. City OF Clute
  825 F.2d 940· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-31 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a dismissal without a trial on the merits or proper summary judgment procedure, especially when jury trial was demanded and facts are disputed, requires reversal.
• United States v. M.C.C. OF Fla., Inc.
  772 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that M.C.C. violated the River and Harbor Act and Clean Water Act by dredging and redepositing sediment, and that the issues were equitable, thus not entitling M.C.C. to a jury trial.
• In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig. Adams Extract Co., Inc. v. Green BAY Packaging, Inc.
  752 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement incorporated into its consent decree, and that the defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the enforcement issues, but erred by adjudicating disputed facts without an evidentiar
• Williams v. Farmers & Merchs. Ins. Co. & Henry Ins. Agency
  457 F.2d 37· 8th Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the appellants' motion for a jury trial because the appellees' amended answer raised a new issue of 'increase of hazard'.
• Oglesbee v. Indymac Fin. Servs., Inc.
  675 F. Supp. 2d 1155· S.D. Fla.· 2009-12-18 ·cited 10×
  A contractual jury trial waiver is valid and enforceable if it is conspicuous, the parties have sufficient sophistication, there was an opportunity to negotiate, no gross bargaining disparity, and no impediment to retaining counsel, even if the underlying contract was fraudulentl
• Elliot Fineman v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc.
  980 F.2d 171· 3d Cir.· 1992-11-24 ·cited 10×
• Harvis v. Roadway Express, Inc.
  973 F.2d 490· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims for retaliatory discharge are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as interpreted by Patterson v. McLean Credit Union.
• Cleveland Buchanan Sparrow, Sr. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  949 F.2d 434· D.C. Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 10×
  Back pay awarded in settlement of a Title VII racial discrimination claim is not excludable from a taxpayer's income as damages received on account of personal injury under Internal Revenue Code section 104(a)(2).
• Christensen v. Ward
  916 F.2d 1462· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, finding that the defendants were immune from suit and that the plaintiff failed to present a valid issue for trial.
• Marilyn Benjamin for the Estate of Marc Benjamin v. Traffic Executive Ass'n E. Railroads
  869 F.2d 107· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that collateral estoppel can apply to findings from a statutorily mandated arbitration proceeding, and its application does not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
• The Terson Co., Inc. v. Bakery Drivers & Salesmen Local 194 & Indus. Pension Fund. Appeal of The Terson Co., Inc.
  739 F.2d 118· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-05 ·cited 10×
  The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) is constitutional and its dismissal of Terson's complaint was proper.
• Amoco OIL Co. v. Torcomian
  722 F.2d 1099· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendants a jury trial because both Amoco's main claim and the defendants' counterclaim contained legal components, and the evidence did not warrant a directed verdict.
• Cutlass Prods., Inc. v. Bregman
  682 F.2d 323· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by submitting confusing special interrogatories to the jury and by failing to disclose them to counsel before summation, prejudicing the defendants.
• Harris v. Richards Mfg. Co., Inc.
  675 F.2d 811· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 10×
  A plaintiff seeking only equitable relief initially, who belatedly seeks compensatory and punitive damages in a post-trial brief, deprives the defendant of its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on those damages claims.
• Bibbs v. JIM Lynch Cadillac, Inc.
  653 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that parties in a suit combining Title VII and § 1981 claims have a right to a jury trial on the legal claims stated under § 1981.
• Myers v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Dist. OF Mont.
  620 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-09 ·cited 10×
  A jury demand made in state court, even if untimely, but granted by the state court under its discretionary rule, is considered 'in accordance with state law' for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c), entitling the party to a jury trial in federal court after removal
• Skidmore v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  619 F.2d 157· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint, affirming the decision in all respects except for dismissing the NRAB as a party.
• Felton D. Duncan v. First Nat'l Bank OF Cartersville
  597 F.2d 51· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 10×
  A party is not entitled to a jury trial after removal if state law required a demand for jury trial and no such demand was made prior to removal, especially when the federal court has independent jurisdiction over equitable counterclaims.
• United States v. Lowell G. Anderson
  584 F.2d 369· 10th Cir.· 1978-09-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a defendant in a tax collection suit brought by the government is entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, and that the jury demand was timely filed.
• Franchi Constr. Co., Inc. v. Combined Ins. Co. OF Am.
  580 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 10×
• United States v. McMAHAN
  569 F.2d 889· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-17 ·cited 10×
  A defendant in an action to enforce the 100% penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6671(b) and 6672 has a right to a jury trial on the issue of whether they are a "person" and whether they violated the statute, even when the government also seeks equitable relief.
• Paradise Valley Investigation & Patrol Servs., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court
  521 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1975-08-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an employer is not entitled to a jury trial in an action brought by the Secretary of Labor under § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act to enjoin future violations and compel disgorgement of illegally withheld overtime wages.
• Roland v. Colgrove
  456 F.2d 1379· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-06 ·cited 10×
  A local rule permitting a six-person jury in civil cases does not violate the Seventh Amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 2072, or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(a) and 48.
• United States v. Ellis Research Labs., Inc.
  300 F.2d 550· 7th Cir.· 1962-03-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Micro-Dynameter is a misbranded device subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the injunction against its interstate commerce was proper.
• Hildur Clarkson and John L. Clarkson v. HERTZ Corp.
  266 F.2d 948· 5th Cir.· 1959-04-23 ·cited 10×
• The NEW York v. DOX
  249 F.2d 572· 1st Cir.· 1957-11-22 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the jury could reasonably conclude the railroad failed to provide a safe place to work.
• City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. United States
  188 F.2d 459· 9th Cir.· 1951-04-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the City and County of Honolulu was not entitled to more than nominal compensation for condemned public highways, as no substitute highways were necessary and the City's ownership was established by stipulation.
• Hubbard v. Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency
  982 F.2d 531· D.C. Cir.· 1992-11-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that 5 U.S.C. § 702's waiver of sovereign immunity for 'relief other than money damages' does not encompass back pay awards for federal employment violations.
• Columbus Mills, Inc. v. Doy L. Freeland
  918 F.2d 1575· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a jury trial on the issue of attorneys' fees and that the finding of Freeland's dissent being arbitrary and vexatious was not clearly erroneous.
• Andrze J. Madura and Anna Dolinska-Madura v. BAC Home Loans Servicing L.P.
  851 F. Supp. 2d 1291· M.D. Fla.· 2012-02-22 ·cited 8×
  A jury trial waiver in a mortgage is enforceable when it is conspicuous, clearly written, and the party signing had the option to walk away from the transaction, even if the party was unsophisticated and had unequal bargaining power relative to the lender.
• Farias v. Bexar Cnty. Bd. OF Trs. FOR Mental Health Mental Retardation Servs.
  925 F.2d 866· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's denial of a jury trial motion was not reviewable because the order was too opaque and failed to demonstrate the exercise of discretion under Rule 39(b).
• In re Cinematronics, Inc. v. Electronic Sports Research
  916 F.2d 1444· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-22 ·cited 8×
  Bankruptcy courts cannot conduct jury trials in noncore proceedings, and claims against a non-debtor in his individual capacity are noncore. A Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on such claims must be heard in the district court.
• Smith v. Barton
  914 F.2d 1330· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that plaintiffs' First Amendment claims under § 1983 were not precluded by the Rehabilitation Act, and that plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial on their § 504 claims due to seeking legal remedies.
• Terry v. Chauffeurs
  863 F.2d 334· 4th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 8×
  A party is entitled to a jury trial for identifiable legal issues in a hybrid § 301/duty of fair representation action, even if equitable issues are also present.
• In re Harbour v. Perkinson
  840 F.2d 1165· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge held that the Perkinsons are entitled to a trial by jury because the trustee's claims, both under federal law for preferences and fraudulent transfers and under state law for voluntary conveyances, are historically legal actions seeking money judgments.
• Ward v. Tex. Emp. Comm'n
  823 F.2d 907· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 8×
  A jury's finding on an issue common to both legal and equitable claims binds the judge in his disposition of the equitable claim.
• Armster v. United States Dist. Court FOR THE Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  792 F.2d 1423· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The nationwide suspension of the civil jury trial system due to insufficient funds for juror fees is unconstitutional and violates the Seventh Amendment.
• McLAUGHLIN v. The Fellows Gear Shaper Co. Appeal of Hermann Pfauter
  786 F.2d 592· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in resubmitting inconsistent jury interrogatories and in setting aside the jury's finding of assumption of the risk, as the evidence did not support it.
• Troy v. City OF Hampton
  756 F.2d 1000· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The Seventh Amendment does not guarantee a right to a jury trial for claims under the Veterans Reemployment Rights Act, as its remedies are equitable in nature.
• United States v. Ariz. Fuels Corp. & Eugene Dalton
  739 F.2d 455· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-02 ·cited 8×
  A creditor cannot setoff pre-receivership debts against receivership assets, even if a contract allows for setoff, if the setoff was not completed before the receiver's appointment. Summary proceedings are appropriate to determine possession of receivership assets.
• Greenhaw v. Lubbock Cnty. Bev. Ass'n
  721 F.2d 1019· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class or bifurcating the trial, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's findings on liability, injury, and damages.
• O'Connor v. State OF Nev.
  686 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-24 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the civil rights actions, finding that judicial and prosecutorial immunity applied to certain defendants and the Eleventh Amendment barred claims against state entities.
• Mohawk Excavating, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & W. J. Usery, Jr.
  549 F.2d 859· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Occupational Safety and Health Act's procedures for citations and penalties do not violate due process and that the civil penalties assessed do not require a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
• The State OF NEW York v. White
  528 F.2d 336· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state's complaint, as pleaded, did not establish federal question jurisdiction because it did not necessarily raise an issue of federal law, but allowed amendment.
• Jackson O. King v. Deutsche Dampfs-Ges
  523 F.2d 1042· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of unseaworthiness and that the employer's warranty of workmanlike performance was breached as a matter of law by the employee's contributory negligence.
• Laird v. Hudson Eng'g Corp.
  449 F.2d 216· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict and that the award of prejudgment interest and denial of remittitur were proper.
• Kennedy v. Lakso Co., Inc.
  414 F.2d 1249· 3d Cir.· 1969-08-15 ·cited 8×
  A plaintiff seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief in a patent infringement suit is entitled to a jury trial on the factual issues, as the right to a jury trial for legal claims is preserved even when equitable claims are present.
• United States v. H. M. Branson Distrib. Co. & Lion Mfg. Corp.
  398 F.2d 929· 6th Cir.· 1968-08-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the pinball machines were gambling devices subject to forfeiture under the Gambling Devices Act, and that the trial court did not err in its procedures or evidentiary rulings.
• Schaefer v. Gunzburg
  246 F.2d 11· 9th Cir.· 1957-04-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, despite a jury demand, was fundamentally equitable in nature, and thus the trial court correctly denied a jury trial on the issues presented.