AFM CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AFM CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
840 F.2d 787
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1988)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 19 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
The facts of this case are set out in the original panel decision certifying three questions of law to the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to Rule 9.150, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 796 F. 2d 1467 (11th Cir.1986). We certified the following three questions: (1) Can a plaintiff suing exclusively in tort recover lost profits? If the answer to question 1 is yes, (2) Can negligent or willful breach of a contract alone constitute an independent tort? If the answer to question 2 is yes, (3) Can such a tort be the basis of an award of punitive damages if the other criteria for awarding punitive damages are met? The Supreme Court of Florida restated these issues into the following question: Does Florida permit a purchaser of services to recover economic losses in tort without a claim for personal injury or property damage? The court then answered the restated question in the negative. AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, 515 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1987). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment must be REVERSED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Smith v. State, 556 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1990)…a. Const. The facts of this case are fully discussed in the prior appeals and collateral challenges involving this appellant. Smith v. Dugger, 888 F. 2d 94 (11th Cir.1989), petition for cert. filed, No. 89-6347 (U.S. Dec. 29, 1989); Smith v. Dugger, 840 F. 2d 787 (11th Cir.1988); Smith v. State, 457 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1984); Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145, 103 S.Ct. 3129, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983). This appeal presents only a single issue that is not procedurally barred. S…
-
Provenzano v. Singletary, 148 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 1998)…83. The State contends that the claim is procedurally barred, and that may be so. However, we need not resolve the procedural bar issue, because we agree with the district court that Provenza-no’s Caldwell claim.is meritless. See Smith v. Dugger, 840 F. 2d 787, 791 (11th Cir.1988). Since the district court released its opinion, we have issued our decision in Davis v. Singletary, 119 F. 3d 1471 (11th Cir.1997). In Davis, at 1481-82, we held that our decisions in Mann v. Dugger, 844 F. 2d 1446 (11th Cir.1…
-
Harris v. Dugger, 874 F.2d 756 (11th Cir. 1989)…ted from [*763] introducing evidence of Harris’ unfavorable record. An attorney is not obligated to present mitigation evidence if, after reasonable investigation, he or she determines that such evidence may do more harm than good. Smith v. Dugger, 840 F. 2d 787, 795 (11th Cir.1988). Moreover, the attorney is not necessarily required to investigate every evidentiary lead; an attorney’s decision to limit his or her investigation may be reasonable under the circumstances. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.C…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- AFM Corp. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 515 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1987)
- AFM Corp. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 796 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1986)