-
513 F.2d 678·
1st Cir.·
1975-04-07
·cited 34×
The court held that a settlement agreement, even if binding, does not irrevocably terminate the original cause of action if the defendant repudiates or materially breaches the settlement terms, allowing the plaintiff to elect to rescind.
-
738 F.2d 405·
10th Cir.·
1984-07-02
·cited 33×
The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the defendant acted in good faith and for good cause, and that the distribution agreement was not exclusive, thus affirming the judgment.
-
841 F.2d 918·
9th Cir.·
1988-03-04
·cited 32×
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the security agreement, not the financing statement, defined the extent of the security interest, and that various claims and counterclaims were either without merit, waived, or barred by law.
-
480 F.2d 92·
5th Cir.·
1973-04-17
·cited 30×
The dissenting judge argues that the plaintiff should be granted a reversal because the trial court improperly refused to amend the pretrial order to include the issue of the insurer's compliance with Texas Insurance Code Article 21.17. This statute requires an insurer to provide
-
615 F.2d 698·
5th Cir.·
1980-04-18
·cited 15×
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the defendants to amend their pleadings to assert the affirmative defense of prescription after both parties had rested, thereby waiving the defense.
-
772 F.2d 185·
5th Cir.·
1985-10-03
·cited 14×
The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims, finding no merit in the § 1981 claim, lack of jurisdiction for the § 1983 claim, and no evidence of discrimination for the Title VII claim.
-
526 F.2d 77·
8th Cir.·
1975-11-07
·cited 12×
The court held that a timely jury trial demand can be made for new issues raised in an amended pleading, even if the original pleading did not include such a demand.
-
406 F.2d 11·
3d Cir.·
1969-01-09
·cited 12×
The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims due to lack of final adjudication and affirmed the trial court's denial of leave to amend the pleadings regarding an affirmative defense due to undue delay.
-
705 F.2d 1426·
5th Cir.·
1983-05-31
·cited 10×
The court held that neither the Union nor the Pension and Welfare Trustees were required to exhaust grievance and arbitration procedures before filing suit, and that the award of attorneys' fees and interest was proper.
-
518 F.2d 292·
10th Cir.·
1975-06-27
·cited 10×
The court held that Garton was not an indispensable party and that the "other insurance" clauses, after eliminating mutually repugnant escape clauses, established State Farm as an excess carrier and Mid-Continent as a primary carrier.
-
944 F.2d 253·
5th Cir.·
1991-10-15
·cited 8×
The one-year period for filing a Miller Act claim is a limitational period, not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and 28 U.S.C. § 1352 provides subject matter jurisdiction. However, the claim was still time-barred.
-
415 F.2d 674·
4th Cir.·
1968-06-04
·cited 8×
The court held that the trial court erred in its division of the broker's commission and in reducing the interest owed on the commission, but correctly allowed intervention. The court modified the commission split and reinstated the full interest amount.
-
725 F.2d 388·
6th Cir.·
1984-01-16
·cited 6×
The court held that dismissal of a Title VII action for filing a request for counsel one day late was improper, and the case should be remanded for a determination of whether the delay was reasonable under equitable principles.
-
933 F.2d 470·
7th Cir.·
1991-05-20
·cited 4×
The court held that a plaintiff's voluntary participation in an obviously risky activity, even if part of a company picnic, bars recovery under the doctrine of assumption of risk, and that the defendant's failure to explicitly plead assumption of risk was not a waiver when contri
-
583 F.2d 155·
5th Cir.·
1978-11-02
·cited 4×
The court held that the loan transaction did not violate Texas usury laws, and the plaintiff's claim for usury failed. The court also affirmed the award on the defendant's counterclaim.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-28
The court held that a breach of contract counterclaim and a recoupment counterclaim were sufficiently pleaded, but an accounting counterclaim was not. The court also struck one affirmative defense as improper and denied motions to strike others.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-05
The court held that the notice pleading standard applies to affirmative defenses and granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-07-28
The court held that motions to strike affirmative defenses are granted in part and denied in part, striking some defenses, treating others as denials, and denying motions to strike for others.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-30
The court held that a motion to strike affirmative defenses should be denied if the defenses, even if not strictly affirmative, provide notice of issues the defendant intends to raise or are akin to a denial.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-01-04
The court held that affirmative defenses need not meet the strict plausibility standard of Twombly/Iqbal, but must have a possible relationship to the claims and not prejudice the plaintiff.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-12-08
The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's affirmative defenses, finding that most were sufficiently pleaded or that striking them was not warranted at this stage.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-02-09
The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to dismiss amended counterclaims and strike affirmative defenses, striking several defenses and portions of the counterclaim while allowing others.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-11-04
The court held that affirmative defenses must provide fair notice of the defense and the grounds upon which it rests, and are not subject to the heightened pleading standard of Twombly/Iqbal. Certain defenses were stricken as legally insufficient or irrelevant.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-11-25
The court held that affirmative defenses are subject to the heightened pleading standard established in Twombly and Iqbal, and granted the motion to strike because many of the defendant's defenses were vague, conclusory, and failed to allege sufficient facts.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2019-10-25
The court held that affirmative defenses must comply with the heightened pleading standard established in Twombly and Iqbal, requiring factual support beyond mere conclusory allegations.
-
992 F.2d 540·
5th Cir.·
1993-06-04
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, but erred in granting summary judgment on the RICO claims due to the county's failure to meet its initial burden and on the section 1983 claims due to the Supreme Court's rejection of a