Seventh Amendment (Right To Jury Trial)

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

• Managed Care Solutions, Inc. v. Essent Healthcare, Inc.
  694 F. Supp. 2d 1275· S.D. Fla.· 2010-01-25 ·cited 7×
  A claim for equitable accounting will be dismissed if the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, and the accounts are not so complex as to be beyond a jury's comprehension.
• Pope v. Fed. Express Corp.
  974 F.2d 982· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the Title VII action and the denial of the recusal motion, but vacated the Rule 11 monetary sanctions for reconsideration.
• Warlick v. Cross
  969 F.2d 303· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding the jury's answer to a special interrogatory inconsistent with the general verdict, and that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.
• In re Grabill Corp.
  967 F.2d 1152· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-13 ·cited 7×
  Bankruptcy judges are competent to conduct jury trials in matters where the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury right.
• COX v. Keystone Carbon Co.
  894 F.2d 647· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 7×
  The court held that claims for benefits under ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B) are equitable in nature and do not entitle a plaintiff to a jury trial, adhering to prior circuit precedent.
• Adams v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
  556 F.2d 737· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendant waived its right to appeal the jury charge on trespass and punitive damages by failing to object at trial, and that the punitive damages award was not excessive.
• Fgdi, Inc. v. Bombardier Cap. Rail Inc.
  383 F. Supp. 2d 1350· M.D. Fla.· 2005-05-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury waiver provision in the Master Lease was rendered ambiguous by the subsequent Master Lease Amendment and, therefore, was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived.
• Stein v. Miller
  158 B.R. 876· S.D. Fla.· 1993-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that defendants in bankruptcy adversary proceedings for preferential and fraudulent transfers are entitled to a jury trial before an Article III court, but dispositive motions can be heard by the bankruptcy court.
• Wood v. United States
  995 F.2d 1122· 1st Cir.· 1993-04-28 ·cited 6×
  A Westfall Act certificate cannot deny the occurrence of the basic incident charged; it must assume that some incident occurred, though it can dispute the characterization or subsidiary facts.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Rind
  991 F.2d 1486· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The Securities and Exchange Commission is not subject to a statute of limitations for civil enforcement actions seeking disgorgement, and defendants are not entitled to a jury trial in such actions.
• Fowler v. Land Mgmt. Groupe
  978 F.2d 158· 4th Cir.· 1992-10-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the Equal Pay Act claim and that the issue of 'willfulness' for the statute of limitations should have been submitted to the jury.
• Paris Kotsilieris v. Hymen P. Chalmers
  966 F.2d 1181· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the attorneys' negligent failure to make a timely jury demand could be considered sanctionable under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 as extreme negligence, the awarded amount of $5,546.25 was excessive due to a lack of specificity in the fee petition and the district c
• Maisano v. Welcher
  940 F.2d 499· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the IRS's warrantless seizure of a vehicle from a taxpayer's driveway, where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the IRS is authorized to collect taxes by levy.
• Wilmer B. GAY v. Petsock
  917 F.2d 768· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-26 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff prisoner failed to state a claim against one defendant, presented insufficient evidence for claims against two others, and that the jury's verdict for the final defendant was permissible.
• Phillip E. Beard for Greater Pittsburgh Bus. Dev. Corp. v. Braunstein
  914 F.2d 434· 3d Cir.· 1990-09-21 ·cited 6×
  A defendant in a bankruptcy proceeding who has not filed a claim against the estate has a right to a jury trial when sued by the trustee for a private right, such as a contract claim for rent.
• Seaboard Lumber Co. v. The United States
  903 F.2d 1560· Fed. Cir.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 6×
  The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) and its procedures, including adjudication in Article I courts and waiver of jury trial rights, are constitutionally permissible conditions on the government's waiver of sovereign immunity for contract disputes.
• Perez-Serrano v. DeLEON-Velez
  868 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1989-02-22 ·cited 6×
  In a § 1983 action seeking both damages and injunctive relief, common issues of liability must first be submitted to a jury, and the district court erred by resolving liability itself.
• Granberry v. O'Barr
  866 F.2d 112· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury verdict of no negligence was supported by the evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or refusing a jury instruction.
• Geldermann, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n
  836 F.2d 310· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-22 ·cited 6×
  The Commodity Exchange Act requires commodity exchange members to submit to customer-initiated arbitration, and this requirement does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment.
• R.V. Fondren and Doris Fondren v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  790 F.2d 1533· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district judge abused his discretion by granting a new trial based on the jury's verdict being against the great weight of the evidence, as the evidence presented by the defendant insurer was sufficient to support the jury's finding.
• In re DON Hamilton OIL Co.
  783 F.2d 151· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-12 ·cited 6×
  There is no constitutional right to a jury trial in an action brought by the Secretary of Labor under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 217, to restrain withholding of wages.
• Nimrod Mktg. (Overseas) Ltd. v. Tex. Energy Inv. Corp.
  769 F.2d 1076· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in finding a waiver of jury trial, the defendants were not entitled to a jury trial because the claim was equitable; however, the court erred in calculating damages by using the breach date exchange rate instead of the judgment date
• In re Evangelist
  760 F.2d 27· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-25 ·cited 6×
  A shareholder's claim under 15 U.S.C. § 80a-35(b) for breach of fiduciary duty regarding investment adviser compensation is equitable in nature and does not entitle the shareholder to a jury trial.
• Koch Fuels, Inc. v. Cargo OF 13
  704 F.2d 1038· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a trial court may sever claims to preserve a party's right to a jury trial, even when another party has elected admiralty jurisdiction, and that a party may be estopped from disputing a cargo measurement when they refused the other party access to measure it.
• Bd. OF Trade of the City OF Chicago v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n
  704 F.2d 929· 7th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board of Trade's challenge to the Commission's arbitration rule was not ripe for adjudication, as neither the Board nor its members were suffering immediate harm and a specific factual context was necessary to determine the constitutional claims.
• Essary v. The Chicago & N. W. Transp. Co.
  618 F.2d 13· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Railroad Adjustment Board's dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an award on the merits, barring subsequent common-law actions for wrongful discharge.
• Nakshian v. Claytor
  628 F.2d 59· D.C. Cir.· 1980-02-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal employees suing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) do not have a right to a jury trial.
• J & R Sportswear & Co. v. Bobbie Brooks, Inc.
  611 F.2d 29· 3d Cir.· 1979-11-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act requires a stay of proceedings when an issue is referable to arbitration, and the Seventh Amendment does not prevent this.
• LEE Pharms. v. Hon. Jacob Mishler
  526 F.2d 1115· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-10 ·cited 6×
  A claim for damages in an action for common law trademark infringement and unfair competition gives rise to a jury trial right under the Seventh Amendment, even if the demand for damages is in a counterclaim.
• Senchal v. Carroll
  394 F.2d 797· 10th Cir.· 1968-05-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court correctly denied the appellants' request for a jury trial and correctly refused to disqualify the judge.
• Milprint, Inc. v. Donaldson Chocolate Co.
  222 F.2d 898· 8th Cir.· 1955-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in increasing the jury's damage award, as the issue of damages was a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law for the court.
• Wilson v. Corning Glass Works
  195 F.2d 825· 9th Cir.· 1952-04-15 ·cited 6×
• In re Jensen
  946 F.2d 369· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-22 ·cited 5×
  A debtor's filing of a bankruptcy petition does not waive their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial for pre-petition claims against third parties, and such claims retain their legal character for jury trial purposes.
• In re Lieb
  915 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court's amended order, which included a temporary restraining order, denial of withdrawal of reference, severance of claims, and lifting of a stay, was not an appealable injunction or final decision, thus dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdic
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Chrysler Corp.
  759 F.2d 1523· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-08 ·cited 5×
  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is entitled to a jury trial in an action brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to remedy violations.
• Home Design Servs., Inc. v. Turner Heritage Homes Inc.
  825 F.3d 1314· 11th Cir.· 2016-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The concurring opinion agrees with the panel's conclusion that precedent requires affirmance of the district court's judgment but argues that the precedent itself, Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., represents a flawed approach to copyright jurispruden
• Santo Scala v. Moore McCORMACK Lines, Inc.
  985 F.2d 680· 2d Cir.· 1993-02-09 ·cited 4×
  The jury's award for pain and suffering was excessive and shocked the judicial conscience, requiring a new trial on damages or a reduced award.
• von Zuckerstein v. Argonne Nat'l Lab.
  984 F.2d 1467· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims of discrimination under Section 1981 and Title VII.
• Gallagher v. Wilton Enters., Inc.
  962 F.2d 120· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a jury trial was appropriate for claims under Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 151B, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict of sexual harassment and sex discrimination.
• In re Bituminous Coal Operators' Ass'n, Inc.
  949 F.2d 1165· D.C. Cir.· 1991-12-10 ·cited 4×
  A blanket reference of a civil case, including trial of liability issues, to a special master over a party's objection exceeds the district court's authority under Rule 53.
• Torcise v. Cmty. Bank of Homestead
  131 B.R. 503· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy court cannot conduct a jury trial on the preference and fraudulent conveyance claims because they are legal in nature and the Defendant is entitled to a jury trial, but the jury demand for the equitable subordination claim is stricken.
• Thomas M. Germain for the Est. of O'Sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc. v. The Conn. Nat'l Bank
  930 F.2d 1038· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to strike a jury trial demand is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it is effectively reviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
• Allegheny Int'l, Inc. v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.
  920 F.2d 1127· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeals and petitions for mandamus because a pending motion for judgment on the pleadings in the bankruptcy court rendered the lower court's orders non-final.
• In re Caesar C. Latimer v. Latimer
  918 F.2d 136· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a party seeking a jury trial in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding must request a transfer to the district court to avoid waiver, and that an oral request for a jury trial is insufficient.
• United Transp. Union v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  881 F.2d 282· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge believes the Sixth Circuit precedent clearly indicates no jury trial right exists in this § 301 case.
• Bailey v. Grand Trunk Lines NEW England
  805 F.2d 1097· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a jury trial based on FSIA but vacated the judgment on liability, remanding for further proceedings on the FELA claims.
• 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
• Gronne v. Abrams
  793 F.2d 74· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-16 ·cited 4×
  New York Judiciary Law § 148-a, requiring medical malpractice claims to be submitted to pretrial panels, does not violate the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Royal Aviation, Inc. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  770 F.2d 1298· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper on Royal's second fraud claim and certain deceptive trade practices claims based on post-accident misrepresentations, but affirmed summary judgment on claims based on pre-accident misrepresentations by the insurance broker.
• Penn-Dixie Steel Corp. (formerly Cont'l Steel Corporation) v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & John T. Dunlop
  553 F.2d 1078· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the employer's letter, when read in its entirety and considering the employer was unrepresented by counsel at the time of a clarifying phone call, sufficiently indicated an intent to contest both the citations and the proposed penalties.