Statutory Interpleader

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

• Libby v. City Nat'l Bank
  592 F.2d 504· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-28 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction for the interpleader action and vacated that judgment. It also found that certain suppliers' claims did not meet the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. The court reversed the finding of breach of contract a
• Smith v. Widman Trucking & Excavating, Inc.
  627 F.2d 792· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-01 ·cited 51×
  The court should not have set aside the final judgment based on alleged attorney misunderstanding without a more thorough record and client input.
• The First Nat'l Bank OF Cincinnati v. Pepper
  454 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-03 ·cited 38×
  The court agreed to reverse the summary judgment due to disputed issues of fact regarding duress.
• Corrigan Dispatch Co. v. CASA Guzman
  569 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to require additional security or in issuing the preliminary injunction in an interpleader action.
• Patterson v. Stovall
  528 F.2d 108· 7th Cir.· 1976-01-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in approving the class action settlement, interpreting the agreement to allow for potential further restitution.
• United States v. Sentinel Fire INS. Co.
  178 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1949-08-13 ·cited 19×
• Matuszak v. The Torrington Co.
  927 F.2d 320· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 14×
  Laid off employees receive seniority credit for the period of their layoff under the collective bargaining agreement, regardless of recall.
• Koehring Co. v. Hyde Constr. Co., Inc.
  424 F.2d 1200· 7th Cir.· 1970-03-19 ·cited 14×
  A federal district court has discretion to dismiss a statutory interpleader action on grounds of equity and comity if the interests of the stakeholder and claimants are adequately protected in a pending state court proceeding.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. McNEILL
  382 F.2d 84· 4th Cir.· 1967-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that cross claims arising from the same occurrence as the original interpleader action are permissible under Rule 13(g) and should be liberally applied.
• Gen. Atomic Co. v. Duke Power Co.
  553 F.2d 53· 10th Cir.· 1977-04-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish jurisdiction under the interpleader statute because it did not possess the disputed property and there were no genuine adverse claimants seeking that property from the plaintiff.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Daniels
  667 F.2d 572· 7th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 6×
  A divorce decree ordering a parent to name a child as an irrevocable beneficiary of a life insurance policy creates an equitable right in the child that Illinois courts will enforce, even if the parent never actually changed the beneficiary designation.
• Champlin Petroleum Co. v. Ingram
  560 F.2d 994· 10th Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding the lease ambiguous and interpreting the royalty provision based on the parties' consistent course of conduct via division orders, which indicated a one-tenth royalty on residue gas.
• The Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Rodgers
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The Court held that a plaintiff in a statutory interpleader action must deposit the disputed funds or post a bond to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
• N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Kneeland
  2005 WL 2149281· M.D. Fla.· 2020-06-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff must deposit the interpleaded funds into the court registry to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Adelman
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-16
  The court granted Wells Fargo's motion for interpleader relief in part, awarding attorney's fees and costs, and ordering deposit of funds, but denied a permanent injunction.
• Bokf, NA v. TG Frost Cos., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-29
  The court held that the plaintiff, as a disinterested stakeholder, had a reasonable fear of vexatious litigation due to conflicting claims on an escrow fund, thus satisfying the requirements for statutory interpleader.
• Walker v. Abram N. Pritzker
  705 F.2d 942· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-03
  A waiver of a claim against the stakeholder, but not against the fund itself, does not divest a federal court of jurisdiction in an interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335. Furthermore, jurisdiction is determined at the time the suit is filed.