Zahn V. International Paper Co.

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

• Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp.
  855 F.2d 1188· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court's damage awards must be recalculated to exclude injuries not proven to a reasonable medical certainty.
• Warren G. Kleban Eng'g Corp. v. Caldwell
  490 F.2d 800· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-08 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over the removed state court action, as the claims were unrelated to the prior federal desegregation litigation.
• Lockard v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  894 F.2d 299· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that pendent party jurisdiction was proper under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) because the statute does not expressly or implicitly prohibit it, unlike the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
• Alvah L. Snow v. Ford Motor Co.
  561 F.2d 787· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the amount in controversy for removal jurisdiction cannot be met by aggregating individual claims, even when injunctive relief is sought, if those claims are separate and distinct.
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly
  921 F.2d 1310· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, their petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition were denied.
• Eldon Lindsey v. Ala. Tel. Co.
  576 F.2d 593· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-12 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not adequately allege the jurisdictional amount for removal under the diversity statute.
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Sch. Dist. OF Lancaster v. Lake Asbestos OF Quebec, Ltd.
  921 F.2d 1330· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 10×
  Non-settling defendants lack standing to challenge a settlement agreement if the agreement itself does not preclude their rights to indemnification or contribution, or otherwise affect their legal rights.
• Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
  157 F. Supp. 2d 1291· S.D. Fla.· 2001-08-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it cannot ministerially enter an aggregate final judgment for compensatory damages and prejudgment interest based on the jury's special verdict, as the verdict did not award such an aggregate amount and the required calculations go beyond simple ministerial ta
• Howard v. Globe Life Ins.
  973 F. Supp. 1412· N.D. Fla.· 1996-12-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not be aggregated to meet the $50,000 amount in controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction, and thus the cases must be remanded to state court.
• Goldberg v. CPC Int'l, Inc.
  678 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that potential attorneys' fees cannot be aggregated to satisfy the jurisdictional amount in a class action, as each class member's claim must independently meet the threshold.
• Forest v. Penn Treaty Am. Corp.
  270 F. Supp. 2d 1357· M.D. Fla.· 2003-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while 28 U.S.C. § 1367 abrogated the Zahn rule and unnamed plaintiffs' claims can be considered for diversity jurisdiction, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the unnamed plaintiff's actual claim for restitution exceeded the $75,000 amount in controvers
• Klempner v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins.
  196 F. Supp. 2d 1233· S.D. Fla.· 2001-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal diversity jurisdiction cannot be predicated on the claim of an unnamed putative class member, nor can claims be aggregated under the common right exception in this case.
• Nat'l Ins. Underwriters v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
  595 F.2d 546· 10th Cir.· 1979-03-26
  A federal court in a diversity suit cannot exercise pendent party jurisdiction over claims against defendants for whom there is no independent basis of federal jurisdiction, especially when those claims fall below the statutory amount in controversy requirement.