Shaffer V. Heitner

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

• Gulf Trading & Transp. Co. v. The Vessel Hoegh Shield
  658 F.2d 363· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that U.S. maritime law applies to the case, a maritime lien existed for the bunker fuel, and the vessel owner's procedural due process claims were without merit.
• Fitzsimmons v. Barton
  589 F.2d 330· 7th Cir.· 1979-01-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying state long-arm statute principles to a federal securities fraud action, as federal law provides for nationwide service of process.
• Duncan v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck
  752 F.2d 1135· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that res judicata does not bar a federal § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of state procedures, and that pursuing state judicial remedies can constitute action under color of state law.
• Schiffahartsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. A. Bottacchi S.A. DE Navegacion
  773 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the maritime attachment procedures under Rule B(1) are derived from the court's inherent admiralty powers, not exclusively from the rule itself, thus avoiding a constitutional challenge to the rule.
• Intermeat, Inc. v. Am. Poultry Inc. & A & W Foods
  575 F.2d 1017· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the attachment of a debt owed to a foreign corporation in New York, combined with the corporation's substantial business contacts with New York, satisfied the "minimum contacts" due process standard for quasi-in-rem jurisdiction under Shaffer v. Heitner. The c
• Trans-Asiatic OIL Ltd. S.A. v. Apex OIL Co.
  743 F.2d 956· 1st Cir.· 1984-09-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a maritime attachment under Rule B, even without prior judicial authorization or a bond, does not violate due process if the defendant receives prompt post-attachment notice and a hearing, and the complaint is sufficiently particularized.
• Lucile Hansen v. Peoples Bank OF Bloomington
  594 F.2d 1149· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction after requiring joinder of the non-diverse remaindermen as indispensable parties under Rule 19.
• Britton v. The Howard Sav. Bank
  727 F.2d 315· 3d Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to lift a stay to permit attachment of property is an appealable collateral order, and that the district court erred in denying the writ of attachment.
• Steinberg v. Int'l Crim. Police Org.
  672 F.2d 927· D.C. Cir.· 1981-10-23 ·cited 9×
  The court clarifies that its prior opinion did not preclude Interpol from raising defenses or proving facts relevant to jurisdiction, and that no foreign sovereign immunity defense was presented.
• Schreiber v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.
  611 F.2d 790· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-27 ·cited 9×
  The transferee court must apply the law of the transferor state, including its choice of law rules, and should not anticipate changes in that law.
• Renaldo Nehemiah v. The Athletics Cong. OF the U.S.A. & the Int'l Amateur Athletic Fed'n. Appeal of The Int'l Amateur Athletic Fed'n
  765 F.2d 42· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 6×
  Personal service on an officer of an unincorporated association within the forum state is insufficient, on its own, to establish personal jurisdiction over the association; a minimum contacts analysis is required.
• Hayes v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  821 F.2d 285· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 5×
  A federal district court sitting in one state lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute concerning title to real property located in another state, as this constitutes a local action.
• Alfons Walz v. von Schweiger
  575 So. 2d 788· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-03-12 ·cited 4×
  The trial court erred in dismissing the quasi-in-rem complaint and dissolving the temporary injunction due to a lack of jurisdiction, as jurisdiction over the funds was established.
• Pittsburgh Terminal Corp. v. MID Allegheny Corp.
  831 F.2d 522· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that directors of a West Virginia corporation, by accepting and exercising their directorships and participating in corporate decisions affecting the corporation's business in West Virginia, established sufficient minimum contacts with the state to be subject to pe
• Smith v. Lloyd's OF London
  568 F.2d 1115· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Georgia long-arm statutes did not apply to Lloyd's of London in this case, and thus the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process.
• Norton v. Ruste Durnal Bridges
  712 F.2d 1156· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-15 ·cited 1×
  A Wisconsin court can assert personal jurisdiction over defendants in a trust dispute if the trust was registered in Wisconsin and the settlor granted the Wisconsin court power to appoint successor trustees, satisfying due process minimum contacts, even if trust assets are locate