Disclosed Principal

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

• Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat'l Bank
  515 F.2d 1200· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-18 ·cited 357×
  A default judgment is void if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, and a defendant can challenge the sufficiency of the pleadings to support a judgment even after default.
• Lubbock Feed Lots, Inc. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.
  630 F.2d 250· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-10 ·cited 87×
  The court held that feedlot operators, acting as agents with an interest in the contract and as party promisees, are the real parties in interest under Texas law and thus have standing to sue the packer for unpaid cattle purchases.
• Paterson-Leitch Co., Inc. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co.
  840 F.2d 985· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-16 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to comply with contractual notice provisions barred its breach of contract claim, and its tort and statutory claims were time-barred.
• Zimmerman v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Rapid City
  848 F.2d 1047· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-06 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the jury's verdict, the directed verdict, or the evidentiary rulings. The court also affirmed the denial of motions to dismiss and the admission of certain evidence.
• Bobby Jones Garden Apts., Inc. v. Suleski
  391 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-26 ·cited 58×
  A federal court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, based on a determination of state law, is improper if there is a good faith expectation that the claim is valid under state law, as this implicates removability and federal jurisdiction.
• Shilman v. United States
  164 F.2d 649· 2d Cir.· 1947-12-04 ·cited 34×
  A seaman's wages earned on a US-owned vessel operated by a general agent are protected from set-off for a court-martial fine, but the agent is not liable for wages as it acted for a disclosed principal.
• Seguros Banvenez, S.A. v. S/S Oliver Drescher
  761 F.2d 855· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-30 ·cited 33×
  The court held that summary judgment against the charterer for stowage and geographical deviations was proper, but summary judgment against the agent was not. The court also reversed an order compelling the charterer to post security and directed a stay pending arbitration.
• Hardee v. Gordon Thompson Chevrolet, Inc.
  154 So. 2d 174· Fla. 1st DCA· 1963-06-11 ·cited 33×
  Hardee appealed a dismissal with prejudice of his breach of implied warranty complaint against an automobile dealer acting as agent for the manufacturer. The court affirmed, holding that the dismissal was proper because the complaint's defect was inherent to the cause of action p
• Mach. Corp. OF Am. v. Gullfiber AB
  774 F.2d 467· Fed. Cir.· 1985-10-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in determining the case was exceptional for awarding attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and that a mere failure to obtain outside counsel's opinion before asserting infringement does not automatically make
• Perkins v. Time Ins. Co. & Randall Davis
  898 F.2d 470· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-18 ·cited 24×
  State law claims against an employer's ERISA plan for tortious breach of contract are preempted by ERISA, but claims against an insurance agent for fraudulent inducement to enroll in the plan may not be preempted.
• Dickinson v. Auto Ctr. Mfg. Co. & John W. McLeod
  733 F.2d 1092· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the statute of frauds and McLeod's authority defenses were barred by the law of the case principle, but reversed the grant of summary judgment on the issue of consideration, and reversed the denial of a directed verdict regarding McLeod's individual liability.
• George W. Bennett Bryson & Co., Ltd. v. Norton Lilly & Co., Inc.
  502 F.2d 1045· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and that Norton Lilly could be held directly liable for services rendered by Bryson.
• MacKey v. Burke
  751 F.2d 322· 10th Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Burke could be held individually liable for the actual damages and that the jury could disregard the corporate entity of U.S. Agro, but reversed the punitive damages award due to insufficient evidence of fraud.
• TTT Stevedores OF Tex., Inc. v. M/V Jagat Vijeta
  696 F.2d 1135· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that TTT Stevedores had a valid maritime lien because it lacked actual knowledge of the 'no lien' provision in the charterparty at the time the contract was made, and thus the vessel owner was not entitled to damages for wrongful seizure.
• Alcom Elec. Exch., Inc. v. Burgess
  849 F.2d 964· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a premature notice of appeal filed before the entry of final judgment was effective due to binding Fifth Circuit precedent, and that the limitation of liability clause in the advertising contract was enforceable under Mississippi law.
• Sadruddin Babul and Rahmat Barkat v. Golden Fuel, Inc.
  990 So. 2d 680· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-09-19 ·cited 11×
  Sadruddin Babul and Rahmat Barkat appealed a summary judgment for breach of contract entered against them individually by Golden Fuel, Inc. The court reversed, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defendants signed the contract as individual
• Richard Bertram, Inc. v. Sterling Bank & Tr.
  820 So. 2d 963· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-05-22 ·cited 11×
  An agent acting for a disclosed principal is not personally liable for the principal's debts or for tortious interference with the principal's contract, absent an express agreement or personal stake.
• Schwartz v. Gold Coast Graphics
  623 So. 2d 819· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-09-01 ·cited 10×
  An agent contracting for a disclosed principal is not personally liable on the contract when the contract clearly states only the principal's credit is involved.
• Kates v. Peter J. Millheiser, M.D.
  569 So. 2d 1357· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-11-13 ·cited 10×
  An attorney acting for a disclosed principal is not personally liable for the principal's debts absent an express agreement to pay.
• Lake City Stevedores, Inc. v. E. W. Shipping Agencies, Inc.
  474 F.2d 1060· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-05 ·cited 10×
  An agent for a disclosed principal is not personally liable on a contract unless they clearly indicate an intent to be bound. East West Shipping Agencies, Inc. did not clearly indicate such intent.
• Johnson v. Pires
  968 So. 2d 700· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-11-28 ·cited 8×
  Johnson, a non-party to an arbitration agreement who signed it only in his corporate capacity as CEO, cannot be compelled to arbitrate claims against him personally. The court reversed the lower court's decision requiring arbitration, holding that ordinary contract law principles
• Claudio Severi v. Seneca Coal & Iron Corp.
  381 F.2d 482· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-03 ·cited 7×
  The court held that Seneca was the principal in the transaction and thus liable to Severi for the agreed-upon commission, but not for the additional loading and trimming charges.
• Fuller v. Fasig-Tipton Co.
  587 F.2d 103· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-09 ·cited 6×
  A third party dealing with an agent for a disclosed principal cannot set off the agent's personal indebtedness against amounts due to the principal unless there is an agreement authorizing such a setoff, and a principal's subsequent loan to the agent does not constitute ratificat
• Winter v. Int'l Motel Brokers, Inc.
  388 So. 2d 232· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-08-06 ·cited 4×
  A broker can recover a commission from the property owner, but not also from the owner's agent, as liability is alternative, not joint and several.
• Crown v. Cecil Holland Ford, Inc.
  207 So. 2d 67· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-02-06 ·cited 4×
  This case concerns whether a new car warranty, which disclaims all other express or implied warranties, protects a manufacturer and its dealer from an action in implied warranty for injuries caused by a defective car part.
• Validsa, Inc. v. Pdvsa Servs. Inc.
  632 F. Supp. 2d 1219· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Defendants breached contracts by failing to pay for accepted goods and anticipatorily repudiated other contracts by failing to provide adequate assurances of performance.
• Katz v. Costa Armatori
  718 F. Supp. 1508· S.D. Fla.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 2×
  A federal court must conduct an independent two-prong analysis for fraudulent joinder: first, review the complaint for a stated cause of action, and second, examine the record under the spirit of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 to ensure the joinder was not a sham.
• Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Revelle Shipping Agency, Inc.
  750 F.2d 457· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 2×
  A maritime agent acting for a disclosed principal is not liable to a creditor for the principal's debt, even if the agent fails to follow the principal's instructions regarding fund disbursement.
• Navid v. Uiterwyk Corp.
  130 B.R. 594· M.D. Fla.· 1991-07-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Uiterwyk Corporation is liable to Navid for conversion, as an agent asserting an adverse claim over specific money can be liable for conversion even if acting for a disclosed principal. The court remanded the civil theft claim due to the Bankruptcy Court's sil
• WP Prop. Holdings I, LLC v. JR&Co., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-30
  The court held that the counterclaims and third-party claims were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss.
• Naval Logistic, Inc. v. M/V Family Time
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-16
  The District Court of South Florida denied defendants' motion for reconsideration of the court's order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a maritime lien case. The defendants sought reconsideration based on an alleged genuine dispute of material fact regarding wh
• Marine Towing & Salvage of S.W. FL., Inc. v. One 66' 2019 Sabre Dirigo
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-24
  Summary judgment is granted for the defendant on claims against him personally for breach of contract and quantum meruit, but denied on the maritime lien claim.
• Med-X Global, LLC v. SunMed Int'l, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-10-17
  The court held that SunMed, acting as an agent for a disclosed principal (IWIA), is not personally liable for the insurance contract debts, and Med-X failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
• Thompson v. City of Miami Beach
  849 F. Supp. 2d 1250· S.D. Fla.· 2014-01-03
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a racially hostile work environment or retaliation under Title VII because the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and the temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse actions was
• Solomon v. Betras Plastics, Inc.
  550 So. 2d 1182· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-11-02
• Bagwell Coatings, Inc. v. Middle S. Energy, Inc.
  797 F.2d 1298· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-22
  The court held that Middle South breached its contract by obstructing Bagwell's work, and Bagwell was entitled to damages for increased costs incurred due to this breach, even if not strictly calculated under Article 38.
• Gribble v. Ditto
  119 F.2d 278· 2d Cir.· 1941-04-28
  The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged a direct right of action for the certificate holders against the defendant, regardless of whether 'The Four' acted as agents or trustees.