32 Cited authorities

Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila
542 U.S. 200 (2004) Cited 2,706 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that states cannot create new causes of action that conflict with ERISA's " ‘interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme,’ " located in § 502 of ERISA
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64 (1938) Cited 20,406 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues
Manuel v. Convergys Corp.
430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) Cited 655 times 4 Legal Analyses
Affirming district court application of Georgia law to determine enforceability of non-compete agreement despite choice-of-law provision requiring application of Ohio law
Public Affairs Press v. Rickover
369 U.S. 111 (1962) Cited 532 times
Holding that courts should not decide important constitutional questions on less than an "`adequate and full-bodied record'"
Montefiore Medical Ctr. v. Teamsters Local 272
642 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 360 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the “exception to the [ordinary] ERISA standing requirements” for “healthcare providers to whom a beneficiary has assigned his claim in exchange for health care” is “narrow”
Malowney v. Federal Collection Deposit Group
193 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 486 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a declaratory judgment may issue only if the plaintiff "assert a reasonable expectation that the injury [he has] suffered will continue or will be repeated in the future."
McMahan v. Toto
256 F.3d 1120 (11th Cir. 2001) Cited 208 times
Holding that "It is clear that statutes allowing for the recovery of attorney's fees are substantive for Erie[ R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)] purposes."
Garren v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.
114 F.3d 186 (11th Cir. 1997) Cited 207 times
Holding that under section 514, a state law claim is subject to "ERISA preemption whenever the alleged conduct at issue is intertwined with the refusal to pay benefits"
Cagle v. Bruner
112 F.3d 1510 (11th Cir. 1997) Cited 202 times
Holding that district court erred in construing ambiguities against drafter under arbitrary and capricious review
Walden v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
669 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2012) Cited 87 times
Holding that plaintiff could not establish a free-exercise claim because she could not show that defendants "burdened one of her sincerely held religious beliefs" (punctuation omitted)
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 346,412 times 923 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1367 Cited 61,875 times 78 Legal Analyses
Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"
Section 1132 - Civil enforcement
29 U.S.C. § 1132 Cited 26,297 times 170 Legal Analyses
Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner
Section 2201 - Creation of remedy
28 U.S.C. § 2201 Cited 24,553 times 61 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment
Section 86.011 - Jurisdiction of trial court
Fla. Stat. § 86.011 Cited 258 times
Granting subject-matter jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions to both circuit and county courts based upon "their respective jurisdictional amounts"

Lee Memorial Health System v. Blue Cross And Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.

32 Cited authorities

Holding that states cannot create new causes of action that conflict with ERISA's " ‘interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme,’ " located in § 502 of ERISA

Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

Affirming district court application of Georgia law to determine enforceability of non-compete agreement despite choice-of-law provision requiring application of Ohio law

Holding that courts should not decide important constitutional questions on less than an "`adequate and full-bodied record'"

Holding that the “exception to the [ordinary] ERISA standing requirements” for “healthcare providers to whom a beneficiary has assigned his claim in exchange for health care” is “narrow”

Holding that a declaratory judgment may issue only if the plaintiff "assert a reasonable expectation that the injury [he has] suffered will continue or will be repeated in the future."

Holding that "It is clear that statutes allowing for the recovery of attorney's fees are substantive for Erie[ R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)] purposes."

Holding that under section 514, a state law claim is subject to "ERISA preemption whenever the alleged conduct at issue is intertwined with the refusal to pay benefits"

Holding that district court erred in construing ambiguities against drafter under arbitrary and capricious review

Holding that plaintiff could not establish a free-exercise claim because she could not show that defendants "burdened one of her sincerely held religious beliefs" (punctuation omitted)

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner

Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

Granting subject-matter jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions to both circuit and county courts based upon "their respective jurisdictional amounts"