-
481 U.S. 1·
U.S.·
1987-04-06
·cited 504×
-
722 F.2d 779·
D.C. Cir.·
1983-11-29
·cited 43×
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over indispensable private defendants and for substantive defects in the claims against the government.
-
762 F.2d 741·
9th Cir.·
1985-05-23
·cited 37×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a stay pending the NLRB's decision, as the contractual interpretation issue was inextricably bound with a representational issue within the Board's primary jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the transfer o
-
482 F.2d 1079·
1st Cir.·
1973-07-23
·cited 37×
The court held that a foreign corporation's extensive contacts, including supplying specifications and supervising performance within Massachusetts, established sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction, but passive purchasers with limited contacts did not.
-
590 F.2d 1124·
D.C. Cir.·
1978-10-16
·cited 34×
Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) applies only to federal officers or employees who held their positions at the time the suit was commenced, not to former officials. Venue under § 1391(b) may lie in a district where a substantial portion of the operative events occurred, but the co
-
599 F.2d 151·
7th Cir.·
1979-04-26
·cited 32×
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act does not preempt the federal common law of nuisance, nor does it limit the relief available in such actions to the statutory minimums. Compliance with a permit is not a defense.
-
771 F.2d 521·
D.C. Cir.·
1985-08-23
·cited 31×
The court held that Noxell's venue arguments were not so indefensible as to warrant attorneys' fees for the defendant under the Lanham Act.
-
644 F.2d 521·
5th Cir.·
1981-05-08
·cited 30×
The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is the exclusive remedy for age discrimination claims by federal employees, but the plaintiff should have an opportunity to prove jurisdiction regarding the ADEA claim.
-
415 F.2d 354·
4th Cir.·
1969-08-29
·cited 20×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaints for lack of jurisdiction without considering whether they stated a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
-
705 F.2d 410·
11th Cir.·
1983-05-16
·cited 12×
The court held that a transfer of funds from a bankrupt corporation to a creditor, which occurred when the creditor exchanged corporate checks for cashier's checks, constituted a voidable preference under Section 60 of the Bankruptcy Act because the creditor had reasonable cause
-
933 F.2d 1568·
11th Cir.·
1991-06-24
·cited 11×
The court held that Alabama's April 6 deadline for minor parties to submit signature petitions and nominate candidates for the general election violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing a significant burden without a compelling state interest.
-
821 F.2d 399·
7th Cir.·
1987-06-04
·cited 10×
The court held that personal jurisdiction was proper over Collection 2000 and Joseph Blasser under Illinois' long-arm statute, and that venue was proper in the Northern District of Illinois, but affirmed the dismissal of Eduardo Blasser and Blasser Brothers for lack of jurisdicti
-
607 F.2d 1157·
5th Cir.·
1979-12-07
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction because the defendants lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Georgia.
-
472 F.2d 789·
6th Cir.·
1972-11-10
·cited 9×
The court held that the District Court improvidently issued a temporary restraining order and should have abstained from interfering with state court proceedings, granting a writ of mandamus to vacate the order and dismiss the action for lack of venue.
-
343 F. Supp. 3d 1304·
M.D. Fla.·
2021-05-17
·cited 7×
Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida because the defendant corporation conducted business there, and exercising personal jurisdiction comports with due process and fairness, thus the motion to dismiss or transfer is denied.
-
770 F. Supp. 633·
S.D. Fla.·
1991-05-21
·cited 6×
A terminated franchisee's continued unauthorized use of the franchisor's trademarks constitutes infringement and unfair competition, and the franchisee cannot use wrongful termination as a defense to avoid injunctive relief.
-
984 F. Supp. 2d 637·
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-03
·cited 1×
Venue was improper in the Northern District of Texas because the plaintiff failed to establish that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred there; the case is transferred to the Middle District of Florida.
-
944 F. Supp. 914·
S.D. Fla.·
1996-10-24
·cited 1×
The court held that Florida Medicaid must cover Augmentative Communication Devices and Services (ACDS) for both adult and child recipients as medically necessary durable medical equipment under the home health care provision or the EPSDT program, and cannot deny coverage based on
-
886 F. Supp. 845·
N.D. Fla.·
1995-05-12
·cited 1×
The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Hudson Construction Co. and that venue was improper, thus transferring the case to the Northern District of Georgia.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-19
The court held that the prisoner's civil rights complaint was subject to dismissal due to improper venue, judicial and prosecutorial immunity, and failure to state a claim under Heck v. Humphrey.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-17
The court held that transfer to the Southern District of Florida was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because it is a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses, and the operative facts occurred there.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-04
The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-04
The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-17
A forum-selection clause specifying a county permits litigation in either federal or state court within that county, and a corporation can be represented by its licensed in-house counsel.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-07
The court held that transfer to the Southern District of Florida is appropriate for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-10-24
The court held that the plaintiff's claims must be dismissed because the Northern District of Florida is an improper venue and the defendants are immune from suit.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-22
The court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, finding they demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their Florida Unauthorized Publication Act claim, a likelihood of irreparable injury, that the equities weighed in their favor, and tha
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-30
The court held that venue was improper in the Middle District of Florida and granted the defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
-
2025 WL 1923126·
N.D. Fla.·
2025-07-29
The court recommended dismissal of the prisoner's civil rights complaint without prejudice due to failure to truthfully disclose litigation history and improper venue.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-29
The court held that the case should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida because venue is proper there and transfer is in the interest of justice and convenience.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-10
The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants for all of the plaintiff's claims and that venue was improper in the Middle District of Florida.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-09
This is a venue determination case in which the district court transferred a diversity action from the Eastern District of California to the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff failed to establish that California was a proper venue for his claims against a Virginia reside
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-29
The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint failed to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was also likely barred by the statute of limitations.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-06-16
Venue is improper in this district, and the plaintiff's claims are frivolous, warranting dismissal rather than transfer.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-06-12
The court held that venue was improper and the plaintiff's claims were frivolous, warranting dismissal rather than transfer.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-05-16
The court recommended transferring the case to the District of Arizona because it is a more convenient forum, as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there and the Northern District of Florida lacks personal jurisdiction over the City of Phoenix.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-24
The court granted in part Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its trade secret misappropriation claims under the DTSA.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2024-11-14
The court recommended transferring the case to the Southern District of Florida because venue was improper in the Northern District.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2024-10-04
The court recommended dismissal of the prisoner's complaint without prejudice because it was frivolous, malicious due to failure to disclose litigation history, and the plaintiff was a 'three-striker' barred from proceeding in forma pauperis.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-24
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the Zupnicks and failed to properly allege subject-matter jurisdiction and venue for Specialty Rx, leading to dismissal of the claims against them.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-26
The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York and transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-03-27
The court granted the defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida, finding the first-filed rule applicable and that the balance of convenience favored transfer.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-12-04
The court granted a Temporary Restraining Order, finding plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of success on their claims for violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and tortious interference with business relationships, and that irreparable harm would result from disclosure
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-08-15
A Florida company that manufactures patio umbrellas sued a Pennsylvania corporation for trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition, alleging the defendant copied its distinctive umbrella design and trade dress. The court denied the defendant's motion
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-11
The court granted the defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida, finding it to be a proper and more convenient forum.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-26
The court held that venue was improper in the District of South Carolina and transferred the case to the District of Florida.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-26
The court held that venue was improper in the District of South Carolina and transferred the case to the Southern District of Florida.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-03-31
The court affirmed the magistrate judge's finding that venue was improper as to Defendant Habanos, but remanded the case to consider whether other defendants waived the venue defense.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-11-18
The court granted the motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Illinois, finding that the first-filed rule and the convenience factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 favored transfer.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-04-25
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not allege a violation of federal law or actual injury, and granted the plaintiff leave to amend.