Diminution In Market Value

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

• R. E. B., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.
  525 F.2d 749· 10th Cir.· 1975-10-21 ·cited 29×
  The court held that allowing recovery for both lost profits and diminution in property value constituted a double recovery, and the judgment must be reduced to eliminate this overlap.
• Bowman Steel Corp. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
  364 F.2d 246· 3d Cir.· 1966-07-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that defective siding integrated into buildings caused property damage to the buildings, not just the siding itself, triggering insurance coverage.
• Dodge St. Bldg. Corp. v. The United States
  341 F.2d 641· Ct. Cl.· 1965-02-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that where the cost of restoration exceeds the diminution in market value, the lessor is entitled only to the diminution in value, and if the unrestored value is greater, the lessor recovers nothing.
• Safeco Title Ins. Co. v. Reynolds
  452 So. 2d 45· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-05-11 ·cited 20×
  Safeco Title Insurance Company appealed a jury verdict awarding the Reynolds $50,000 in damages for breach of title insurance contract and $20,000 in attorney's fees after Safeco failed to disclose two encumbrances (an easement and reciprocal parking agreement) affecting their pr
• F.W.F., Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp.
  494 F. Supp. 2d 1342· S.D. Fla.· 2007-06-25 ·cited 13×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, finding no material breach by either party.
• Hynd v. Ireland
  582 So. 2d 772· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-07-17 ·cited 11×
  The statute of limitations for fraud begins to run when legally cognizable damages are incurred, not when the full extent of damages is known or the final event occurs.
• Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. The United States
  467 F.2d 1351· Ct. Cl.· 1972-10-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the government must compensate the Indian Community for its failure to subjugate Parcel B as understood by the Indians, and that damages are measured by the diminution in value. The court also affirmed the Commission's ruling on restoration of camp-sites but r
• Stanton Rd. Assocs. v. Lohrey Enters.
  984 F.2d 1015· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-28 ·cited 9×
  The dissenting judge would hold that attorneys' fees are recoverable under CERCLA's amended definition of 'response' and would affirm the district court's establishment of an escrow fund, finding the issue was not properly raised on appeal.
• Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Pub. Util. Dist. NO. 1 OF Whatcom Cnty.
  123 F.2d 286· 9th Cir.· 1941-10-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the public utility district's taking of properties was a public necessity and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions regarding just compensation.
• Fla. E. Coast Props., Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  572 F.2d 1108· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the construction and operation of a jail/work-release facility adjacent to private property, which caused a diminution in market value, did not constitute a taking without just compensation or a nuisance, absent physical intrusion or interference with property
• Associated Stations, Inc. v. Cedars Realty & Dev. Corp.
  454 F.2d 184· 4th Cir.· 1972-01-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 'cost of restoration' standard for damages is inappropriate when it greatly exceeds the diminution in market value, potentially creating a windfall for the plaintiff. Damages should be the lesser of the cost of restoration or the diminution in market value
• Robinson v. Palm Coast Constr. Co., Inc.
  611 So. 2d 1351· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-01-15 ·cited 2×
  This case involves an appeal of summary judgments granted to the developer/builder (PCC) on negligence claims filed by condominium purchasers (Robinsons and Roby) who alleged their garages were too small to fit two cars, diminishing the property's value.
• Kanematsu-Gosho Ltd. v. M/T Messiniaki Aigli
  814 F.2d 115· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-20
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of cargo damage under COGSA, but the award of attorney's fees to the defendants was not supported by clear evidence of bad faith.
• Kellermeyer v. Miller
  427 So. 2d 343· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-03-01
  In this legal malpractice case, the court affirmed summary judgment for an attorney (Miller) based on the statute of limitations defense. The appellants claimed that their cause of action for negligence did not accrue until December 27, 1977, when they lost a judicial determinati
• Hodges v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
  418 F.2d 563· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-15
  The court held that the jury's findings on land value before and after damage, combined with the inability to apportion pre-existing damage, established the defendant's liability for the full diminution in value.
• Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc. v. Kerns
  164 F.2d 1007· 10th Cir.· 1947-11-06
  The court held that psychological effects of a temporary nuisance do not constitute permanent damage to real estate, and thus, the award for permanent damages was improper.