Diminution In Value

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

• Reporter Pub. Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  201 F.2d 743· 10th Cir.· 1953-01-30 ·cited 6×
  A taxpayer cannot claim a deductible capital loss for a decrease in the value of an asset that continues to be used in the business and has not been sold or abandoned.
• Fla. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Lopez-Brignoni
  114 So. 3d 1138· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-09-12 ·cited 5×
  The Florida Department of Agriculture appeals a trial court order certifying a class of Miami-Dade County homeowners seeking compensation for destruction of healthy residential citrus trees under the Citrus Canker Eradication Program. The Third District affirms the class certific
• Courtney Enters., Inc. v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc.
  788 So. 2d 1045· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-04-18 ·cited 5×
  Courtney Enterprises appeals summary judgment in favor of Publix in a property damage case involving dry-cleaning chemical contamination. The court reverses, holding that statutory rehabilitation immunity under Florida's Water Quality Assurance Act does not eliminate an adjoining
• Boyd Motors, Inc. v. Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau
  880 F.2d 270· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the insurance policy covered the diminution in value of repaired vehicles and that this coverage was not precluded by the 'loss of market' exclusion.
• Haisfield v. Fleming, Haile & Shaw, P.A.
  819 So. 2d 182· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-05-15 ·cited 4×
  Haisfield sued his former attorneys at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (SS & D) for legal malpractice after they pursued a lawsuit for specific performance with abatement of purchase price in a real estate dispute. The court affirmed summary judgment for SS & D under the doctrine of ju
• NEW Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Vieira
  930 F.2d 696· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 4×
  Diminution in value of property due to defective workmanship is not 'property damage' under the insurance policy's definition requiring 'physical injury' to tangible property, and therefore the insurer is not liable for the settlement amount paid on behalf of the insured.
• Doyle Conner v. Reed Bros., Inc.
  567 So. 2d 515· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-09-21 ·cited 4×
  Reed Brothers, Inc. challenges a citrus canker quarantine imposed by Florida's Department of Agriculture that effectively destroyed the market value of its Swingle hybrid seedlings and seed source trees. The court affirms the trial court's finding of an inverse condemnation takin
• E. Ritter & Co. v. Dep't OF THE Army
  874 F.2d 1236· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's failure to maintain the flood control ditch banks, which caused erosion to adjacent land, constituted operational negligence not protected by the discretionary function exception or floodwater immunity, and affirmed the damages awarded.
• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. S.B. Jennings
  485 So. 2d 1374· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-04-04 ·cited 4×
  Florida Power & Light appealed a jury verdict awarding severance damages in an eminent domain proceeding, challenging the trial court's admission of expert testimony about health hazards from high-voltage transmission lines. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding th
• Tree Constr. Corp. v. Caplinger
  446 So. 2d 245· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-03-07 ·cited 4×
  A Florida appeals court reversed a $11,600 damages award in a construction defects case, holding that the trial court used an improper measure of damages by applying a diminution-in-value standard rather than the cost-of-repair standard. The court remanded for a new trial solely
• Pompa Constr. Corp. v. City OF Saratoga Springs
  706 F.2d 418· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the zoning ordinance did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because it substantially advanced legitimate state interests and allowed for economically viable uses of the property.
• D. H. Overmyer Warehouse Co., Inc. v. Kuniansky
  419 F.2d 1280· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's damage award, falling within the range of expert testimony, was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment.
• City OF ST. Paul v. Chicago
  413 F.2d 762· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-06 ·cited 4×
  A zoning ordinance restricting building heights is a valid exercise of police power if reasonably related to public welfare, even if it depreciates property values or serves aesthetic purposes.
• Hubschman v. The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Collier Cnty.
  610 So. 2d 691· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-12-18 ·cited 2×
  In a condemnation proceeding, the Board of County Commissioners took property from the Hubschmans, awarding them $70,000 as full compensation. The Hubschmans appealed, claiming their losses were worth $300,000. The District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the trial
• United States v. 2
  836 F.2d 498· 10th Cir.· 1988-01-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the commission neither increased the taken estate nor diverged from the district court's instructions on severance damages, and that its fact-finding was not clearly erroneous.
• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Roberts
  490 So. 2d 969· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-06-05 ·cited 2×
  Florida Power & Light Company appealed a jury verdict awarding severance damages to property owners based on evidence that high-voltage transmission lines posed health hazards and diminished adjacent property values. The court rejected the outdated "majority rule" from Casey v. F
• United States v. 760.807 Acres OF Land
  731 F.2d 1443· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the jury instruction on severance damages was erroneous, no reversible error occurred because the landowners failed to present sufficient evidence that the taking of the ESHZ caused a diminution in the market value of the remainder.
• Ardell Adams v. The United States
  680 F.2d 746· Ct. Cl.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 2×
  The existence of prior land use or clearance easements does not preclude a separate taking of avigation easements by the United States, but compensation must account for any overlap in value diminution.
• State v. Basford
  119 So. 3d 478· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-07-24 ·cited 1×
  The State of Florida appealed a trial court judgment awarding inverse condemnation compensation to a pig farmer for improvements rendered valueless by the Pregnant Pig Amendment, which banned gestation crates. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Amendment effected a re
• Vidal v. The Hershey Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts demonstrating a concrete injury, thus lacking Article III standing to pursue their claims.
• Shaw v. Calles
  412 So. 3d 152· Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-05-14
  A plaintiff in a nuisance case may recover damages for loss of quiet enjoyment and impairment of property use, including noneconomic damages for annoyance, discomfort, and inconvenience, provided such damages are specially stated in the pleading and supported by evidence at trial
• Butcher v. Knauf Gips KG
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-03
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting partial summary judgment for the defendants on claims for diminution in property value and loss of use.
• Marco Marine Constr., Inc. v. Kopras
  268 So. 3d 259· Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-04-17
  Marco Marine Construction appeals a trial court's award of attorneys' fees to Rebecca Kopras under Florida's offer of judgment statute (section 768.79) following Kopras's successful negligence action arising from maritime law. The Second District Court of Appeal recedes from its
• Winshall v. Viacom Int'l, Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2019-02-25
  The court granted in part and denied in part Viacom's motion for summary judgment. Counts II, III, and IV were dismissed entirely. Count I, for indemnification, was dismissed except for claims related to attorneys' fees and costs, which were allowed to proceed. The court denied M
• 100079 Canada, Inc. v. Stiefel Labs., Inc.
  809 F. Supp. 2d 636· S.D. Fla.· 2013-06-21
  The court held that the plaintiff's securities fraud claims were time-barred because a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the violation more than two years before the lawsuit was filed.
• James D. Hinson Elec. Contracting Co. v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc.
  796 F. Supp. 2d 1341· M.D. Fla.· 2011-03-28
  The court held that BellSouth may recover corporate overhead expenses that bear a reasonable relationship to its repair work, but claims processing expenses are unrecoverable litigation costs under Florida common law. Summary judgment was denied on the FDUTPA claim due to a mater
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. Michael Mayew & Karen Mayew v. Chrysler, LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2008-10-01
  The court granted the defendant's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert testimony, finding it unreliable under Daubert and Delaware Rule of Evidence 702. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the Delaware Lemon Law and Delaware Consumer Fraud Ac
• IN & FOR Sussex Cnty. DR. Joseph P. Coladonato v. : William AND Aileen Watkins
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2007-05-14
  The Superior Court adopted the Commissioner's findings and recommendations, ordering the return of the plaintiff's Cadillac and the transfer of its title. The court found that the vehicle was not a gift to the defendants, but rather initially a conditional gift or gift causa mort
• Nutt v. Orange Cnty.
  769 So. 2d 453· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-10-06
  The court held that a landowner whose property was partially condemned cannot recover severance damages based on speculation about future governmental action that might affect the remaining property. The court distinguished between compensation for known and imminent improvements
• Champion Int'l Corp. v. Hussey
  619 So. 2d 432· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-06-04
  Champion International's unauthorized timber taking from Hussey's land was properly found liable, but the trial court erred in awarding diminution in property value as damages rather than the fair market value of the timber and reforestation costs.
• John A. Henry & Co., Ltd. v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co.
  941 F.2d 1068· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-12
  The court held that the district court did not err in submitting the contract and wrongful interference claims to the jury, permitting an award of punitive damages, or providing jury instructions before deliberations.
• Bergerco v. The Shipping Corp. OF India
  896 F.2d 1210· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-26
  The court held that a remand for a limited retrial on the foreseeability of damages was necessary due to the inadequacy of the reconstructed trial record following the loss of the court reporter's notes.
• Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. & Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  861 F.2d 250· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-16
  The court held that the SMP policy covers diminution in the building's value exceeding the cost of replacement and installation, while the umbrella policy does not cover diminution in value. Consequential damages are not covered if arising from the insured's defective work or pro
• Baugh Constr. Co. v. Mission Ins. Co.
  836 F.2d 1164· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-23
  An insurer's duty to defend arises if the complaint alleges facts that, if proven, would render the insurer liable, and this duty is broader than the duty to indemnify. Policy exclusions for defective products or faulty work do not necessarily bar coverage for consequential damag
• United States v. 129.4 Acres OF Land
  789 F.2d 715· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-08
  The court's majority opinion, which the dissenting judge disagrees with, likely held that the United States, by condemning land, acquired rights to water services from YMID.
• United States v. 2.33 Acres OF Land
  704 F.2d 728· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-11
  The dissenting judge holds that the Commissioners' award, including severance damages, was proper and did not overcompensate the landowners.
• Hartzell v. Justus Co., Inc.
  693 F.2d 770· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-18
  The court held that the jury instructions adequately allowed for consequential damages when the contract's limited remedy clause failed of its essential purpose, and that the jury's verdict did not constitute a double recovery.
• The City OF Sanibel v. Goode
  372 So. 2d 181· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-06-15
  The court held that the city's zoning ordinance, as applied to the appellee's property, was unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory, and therefore void.