Diminution In Value

92 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Shaw v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  949 So. 2d 1066· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-01-05 ·cited 47×
  Homeowners appealed the denial of a mandatory injunction seeking to force Tampa Electric Company to remove large electrical transmission poles from their neighborhood. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that even if the poles constituted a nuisance, monetary damages
• Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. City OF Pompano Beach
  829 So. 2d 928· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-09-25 ·cited 39×
  The Florida Department of Agriculture challenged a trial court's certification of a class action by citrus tree owners seeking damages for trees destroyed under a citrus canker eradication program. The Fourth District affirmed the class certification but reversed the inclusion of
• Muroff v. Dill
  386 So. 2d 1281· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-08-06 ·cited 36×
  The Muroffs appealed a trial court order denying their motion for judgment n.o.v. and granting a partial new trial on damages in a breach of contract case. The court affirmed, holding that appellees were entitled to nominal damages despite insufficient evidence on the proper meas
• Bartolo Thebaut and Franklin Glazier v. Canova
  11 Fla. 143· Fla.· 1867-01-01 ·cited 35×
  In this 1867 Florida Supreme Court case, complainants sought to enjoin defendants from erecting a steam mill near their residences in Jacksonville, alleging irreparable harm from noise and smoke. The Court held that an injunction in equity requires clear proof that the thing to b
• The Keyes Co. v. Shea
  372 So. 2d 493· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-06-06 ·cited 31×
  The Sheas sued real estate salesman Alfonso Chavez and his employer The Keyes Company for misrepresentations and breach of fiduciary duty in the sale of their apartment complex. The jury returned a $50,000 verdict for the Sheas, but the court reversed and remanded for a new trial
• 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.
• The Deltona Corp. v. The United States
  657 F.2d 1184· Ct. Cl.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the federal government's denial of dredge and fill permits, while frustrating plaintiff's development expectations, did not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking because it did not deprive the plaintiff of all economically viable use of its land and the regulati
• City OF Jacksonville v. Smith
  159 So. 3d 888· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-02-26 ·cited 26×
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's determination that the City of Jacksonville's construction and operation of a fire station on city property inordinately burdened adjacent property owners' land under the Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Right
• Columbia Brick Works, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. OF Am.
  768 F.2d 1066· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-13 ·cited 24×
• Cabrera v. Municipality OF Bayamon
  562 F.2d 91· 1st Cir.· 1977-09-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to order the relocation of the landfill or condemnation of plaintiffs' property, and that substantial economic loss alone does not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking.
• Evans v. Gray
  215 So. 2d 40· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-10-22 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for fraud and deceit because the alleged misrepresentations concerned future performance, opinions, or were not actionable representations of fact, and lacked an allegation of diminished stock value.
• William C. Haas & Co., Inc. v. City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  605 F.2d 1117· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-04 ·cited 19×
  The court held that substantial diminution in property value due to land use restrictions, even if disproportionate, does not constitute a constitutional taking if the restrictions are reasonably related to the promotion of public welfare.
• Avery v. The United States
  330 F.2d 640· Ct. Cl.· 1964-04-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the introduction of larger, noisier aircraft constituted a new taking of an avigation easement over Group A parcels and parcel 32, but that physical invasion by sound waves over Groups C, D, and E did not constitute a compensable taking.
• Pearce & Pearce, Inc. v. Kroh Bros. Dev. Co.
  474 So. 2d 369· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-08-13 ·cited 17×
  Pearce & Pearce, Inc., an architectural firm, appeals a judgment holding it solely liable for water damage to a medical office building caused by defective design, while Kroh Brothers and Medical Office Building Investors cross-appeal the damage award amount. The court affirms bo
• Stevens v. F/V Bonnie Doon
  731 F.2d 1433· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in taking new evidence on damages after remand and in fixing damages based on a later repair estimate, as long as deterioration damage was excluded and the date of valuation was practical.
• Safer v. Perper
  569 F.2d 87· D.C. Cir.· 1977-11-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Joint Venture and Chevy Chase were not third-party beneficiaries of the construction contract, but that Limited Partnership was a successor-in-interest to Winthrop and could sue for breach of contract.
• The W. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Polar Panel Co.
  457 F.2d 957· 8th Cir.· 1972-03-16 ·cited 16×
  Under Minnesota law, damage to a building caused by the incorporation of a defective product is covered by a comprehensive liability policy, even if the product itself is excluded from coverage.
• King v. The United States
  427 F.2d 767· Ct. Cl.· 1970-06-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the construction of the Toronto Dam created a permanent, intermittent backwater effect causing substantial damage to plaintiffs' farmlands, constituting a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.
• Jensen v. The United States
  305 F.2d 444· Ct. Cl.· 1962-07-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for just compensation for avigation easements were not barred by the statute of limitations, as the taking occurred within the six-year period preceding the filing of the petitions. The court also affirmed the Commissioner's valuation of
• Boyd v. United States
  222 F.2d 493· 8th Cir.· 1955-05-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that landowners are entitled to compensation for the diminished market value of their remaining property only if the specific use of the taken portion of their land directly causes that diminution, not merely the general use of the entire project.
• Oscar v. Univ. Students Co-Operative Ass'n
  965 F.2d 783· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·cited 15×
  A plaintiff cannot recover under RICO for a decrease in property value or loss of use and enjoyment; only concrete financial losses to business or property are compensable.
• State v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc.
  505 So. 2d 592· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-04-10 ·cited 15×
  The State of Florida destroyed healthy citrus trees at appellees' nurseries as part of an emergency eradication effort to prevent the spread of citrus canker, despite negative test results. The trial court found this constituted a compensable taking even though it was a valid exe
• Foster v. City OF Gainesville
  579 So. 2d 774· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-05-03 ·cited 14×
  Property owners sued the City of Gainesville for inverse condemnation after the city extended an airport runway, causing low-flying aircraft to pass over their homes at 220 feet or less, resulting in noise, vibrations, and property damage. The trial court granted the city's motio
• Davey Compressor Co. v. City OF Delray Beach
  639 So. 2d 595· Fla.· 1994-03-31 ·cited 13×
  Davey Compressor Company illegally dumped toxic solvent into groundwater contaminating the City of Delray Beach's public water supply. The Florida Supreme Court held that a municipality can recover restoration costs for contaminated groundwater even when such costs exceed the pro
• Atl. Int'l Inv. Corp. v. State
  478 So. 2d 805· Fla.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 13×
  Atlantic International Investment Corporation sued for inverse condemnation after state agencies denied and delayed permits for its planned residential subdivision development. The Florida Supreme Court held that while Atlantic could bring its taking claim in circuit court despit
• THE ST. JOE Co. v. Rawlis Leslie
  912 So. 2d 21· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-07-29 ·cited 12×
  The St. Joe Company appeals a trial court's certification of a class action brought by property owners alleging contamination from paper mill waste dumping. The appellate court reverses, holding that class certification was inappropriate because individualized proof of contaminat
• State v. Varela
  732 So. 2d 1146· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-04-07 ·cited 12×
• Fla. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n v. Flotilla, Inc.
  636 So. 2d 761· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-03-16 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission appealed a trial court judgment finding it liable for inverse condemnation when discovery of bald eagle nests on a residential development project required creation of habitat preservation zones that restricted development. The app
• McDOWELL-Wellman Eng'g Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. & Lexington Ins. Co. & Rollins
  711 F.2d 521· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court should have found that the expenses claimed as business interruption loss are within the policy's coverage and not barred by the product exclusion clause.
• Baylen St. Wharf Co. v. City of Pensacola
  39 So. 2d 66· Fla.· 1949-01-25 ·cited 12×
  The court considered whether a property owner could counterclaim for damages caused by a city's storm sewer in a tax foreclosure suit, and whether a separate injunction suit for the same issue could proceed. The court held that while counterclaims are generally not allowed in tax
• 11 v. United States
  152 F.2d 566· 5th Cir.· 1945-12-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the proper measure of compensation for a leasehold estate taken by eminent domain is the diminution in market value, not fair annual rental. The fee owners' compensation was affirmed as they were only deprived of surface use.
• Brevard Cnty. v. Stack
  932 So. 2d 1258· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-07-14 ·cited 11×
  Brevard County appealed a partial summary judgment finding the county liable under Florida's Bert J. Harris, Jr. Act for inordinately burdening property owners' real property rights through a wetlands protection ordinance. The court affirmed the finding of liability but reversed
• Morton P. MacLEOD v. Cnty. OF Santa Clara
  749 F.2d 541· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-10 ·cited 11×
  The denial of a permit to harvest timber did not constitute a compensable taking because it did not interfere with the primary uses or investment-backed expectations of the property, even if it prevented the 'highest and best use'.
• Falls Riverway Realty, Inc. v. The City OF Niagara Falls
  732 F.2d 38· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 11×
  A property owner is entitled to compensation for unsuitable access resulting from a public project, even without a direct taking of their property, and the suitability of access is a factual question rarely resolved by summary judgment.
• Elliott v. Elliott
  58 So. 3d 878· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-02-07 ·cited 10×
  William Robert Elliott appeals a jury verdict for negligent handling of a corpse, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and diminution of property value arising from his dismemberment and cremation of his mother's corpse without disclosing the remains' location. The appella
• State v. L.N. Murray
  670 So. 2d 977· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-01-19 ·cited 10×
  In this eminent domain case, the Department of Transportation appealed a jury award of severance and business damages to restaurant owners whose parking lot was partially taken for road expansion. The court affirmed the exclusion of the Department's cost-to-cure testimony regardi
• Fusco v. The State OF Conn.
  815 F.2d 201· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they did not allege a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property interest.
• Perry v. Stewart Title Co.
  756 F.2d 1197· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted judgments n.o.v. on claims arising from attempted rescission due to lack of damages evidence, but improperly granted directed verdicts on the Texas Debt Collection Act claim.
• Johnson v. The United States
  479 F.2d 1383· Ct. Cl.· 1973-06-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the installation of fences by the United States within a state highway right-of-way, which restricted but did not totally deprive landowners of access to their property, constituted a reasonable exercise of police power and not a compensable taking under the F
• Tolin v. Vasil M. Doudov
  626 So. 2d 1054· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-11-10 ·cited 8×
  This appeal addresses a land sale dispute where the seller failed to timely provide a promised access road to the purchaser's five-acre property. The court upheld the jury's damages award based on loss of use but reversed the trial court's improper amortized calculation of prejud
• In re United Trucking Serv. Inc. v. Trailer Rental Co., Inc.
  851 F.2d 159· 6th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that post-petition damages to leased equipment, resulting from a breach of a lease agreement by a debtor-in-possession, can be treated as an administrative expense under § 503, but claims for equipment stolen pre-petition cannot. The court also remanded the calcula
• Mo. Terrazzo Co. v. Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co.
  740 F.2d 647· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-08 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority mischaracterized the basis of liability and reached the wrong result regarding insurance coverage.
• Jentgen v. The United States
  657 F.2d 1210· Ct. Cl.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's economic loss due to federal regulation of his property did not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, as he was still offered some development opportunities and the property retained significant value.
• United States v. 77
  647 F.2d 104· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the commission's award to the Taylors was supported by rationally founded expert testimony and proper evidence, but the award to the State was clearly erroneous due to insufficient evidence of an alternative highest and best use.
• Hershel Rich v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  583 F.2d 435· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding damages, either through lost profits or diminution in business value.
• A. J. Hodges Indus., Inc. v. The United States
  355 F.2d 592· Ct. Cl.· 1966-01-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the introduction of larger, noisier aircraft (B-52s) constituted a new taking of an avigation easement, distinct from prior takings, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for the resulting diminution in property value.
• Davis v. United States
  295 F.2d 931· Ct. Cl.· 1961-11-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's low flights over private property, which diminished its value, constituted a taking of an easement of flight, even if the use was not completely destroyed.
• Merrill Stevens DRY Dock Co. v. Nicholas
  470 So. 2d 32· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-05-14 ·cited 7×
  Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Company appealed a judgment awarding damages to Ray Nicholas for negligent handling of his yacht. The court reversed the damages award because the trial court impermissibly allowed double recovery by combining the vessel's diminution in value with repair
• Latham B. Hewlett v. Barge Bertie
  418 F.2d 654· 4th Cir.· 1969-11-28 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a vessel's prior status as a constructive total loss does not preclude recovery for subsequent damage, and the cost of repairs is the proper measure of damages when economically feasible.
• G.M.H. v. State
  18 So. 3d 728· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-10-09 ·cited 6×
  G.M.H. was adjudicated delinquent for burglary and grand theft of a dirt bike and challenges a $1,062 restitution award. The appellate court reversed because the trial court admitted hearsay evidence of repair costs and remanded for a new hearing with admissible evidence of the v