In Pari Delicto

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

• State of Fla. ex rel. John Nuveen v. Greer
  88 Fla. 249· Fla.· 1924-10-09 ·cited 282×
  A bondholder sought mandamus to compel municipal officers to levy taxes to pay principal and interest on bonds issued by the City of Quincy in 1909 for school construction. The Florida Supreme Court held that although the bonds were issued under express statutory authority, they
• United AIR Lines, Inc. v. Wiener
  335 F.2d 379· 9th Cir.· 1964-06-24 ·cited 185×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied California law regarding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and that there was sufficient evidence to support findings of negligence against both United and the government.
• Salim Aoude v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  892 F.2d 1115· 1st Cir.· 1989-12-29 ·cited 160×
  A district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case for fraud on the court, and such dismissal is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
• State OF W. Va. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc.
  440 F.2d 1079· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-29 ·cited 155×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement, particularly regarding the use of the 'passing-on' doctrine for damage distribution and the maintenance of a class action for consumer claims.
• Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Am. Dist. Elec. Protective Co.
  106 Fla. 330· Fla.· 1932-08-02 ·cited 119×
  The court held that a railroad company could seek indemnity from a signal company for damages paid to an injured employee, even though both companies were potentially liable to the employee. The railroad company's liability stemmed from its employer-employee relationship, while t
• Ring v. Spina
  148 F.2d 647· 2d Cir.· 1945-03-19 ·cited 93×
  The court held that the Guild's Minimum Basic Agreement, with its restrictive provisions, likely violates the Sherman Act and that the plaintiff's signing under economic coercion does not preclude him from seeking relief. The denial of a preliminary injunction was reversed.
• Lektro-Vend Corp. v. The Vendo Co.
  660 F.2d 255· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 89×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings that the acquisition and non-compete covenants did not violate antitrust laws, upholding the standard of review for factual findings.
• Calnetics Corp. & Meier-Line, Inc. v. Volkswagen OF Am., Inc.
  532 F.2d 674· 9th Cir.· 1976-02-24 ·cited 88×
  The court held that summary judgment for Distributor on antitrust claims was improper, a directed verdict for VW/Subsidiary on Clayton Act damages was error, and summary judgment for Calnetics on VW/Subsidiary counterclaims was partially correct but required further fact-finding
• Ingham v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  373 F.2d 227· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-14 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the government was negligent for failing to report a significant drop in visibility to the pilot, and this negligence was a proximate cause of the crash. Eastern Air Lines was also found negligent for improperly executing a landing approach and a missed approa
• Pearlstein v. Scudder & German
  429 F.2d 1136· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-02 ·cited 79×
  The court held that a customer's claim for damages due to a broker's violation of Regulation T should be denied when the customer is an experienced speculator who was not induced by the violation and refused to sell securities despite advice.
• Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Arizona Downs
  670 F.2d 813· 9th Cir.· 1982-01-07 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the date allocation provisions of the lease are not a per se violation of the Sherman Act and are immune from antitrust attack under the state action doctrine.
• Martin Cnty. v. Edenfield
  609 So. 2d 27· Fla.· 1992-11-19 ·cited 65×
  Martin County sought review of a district court reversal of summary judgment in a Whistle-Blower's Act case. The Florida Supreme Court held that an employee who participated in the alleged wrongdoing is not categorically barred from whistle-blower protection, and that participati
• Hurwitz v. Hurwitz
  136 F.2d 796· D.C. Cir.· 1943-06-22 ·cited 63×
  An administratrix can recover property fraudulently conveyed by the decedent to defeat creditors, even if the decedent could not, because the heirs are not responsible for the fraud.
• Greene v. Gen. Foods Corp.
  517 F.2d 635· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the plaintiff distributor's participation in the defendant's marketing scheme did not bar his antitrust claim, and that the defendant's MFSA pricing system violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
• George's Radio, Inc. v. Cap. Transit Co.
  126 F.2d 219· D.C. Cir.· 1942-02-02 ·cited 61×
• Chicago Great W. Ry. Co. v. Casura
  234 F.2d 441· 8th Cir.· 1956-06-07 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while the judgment against both defendants is affirmed, the railway company is entitled to indemnity from Swift & Company because Swift's negligence was the primary cause of the injury.
• Kestenbaum v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
  575 F.2d 564· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-23 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the plaintiff's proof of damages from price-fixing was legally insufficient due to speculation and reliance on an illegal conspiracy. It also found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an anticompetitive effect from Falstaff's local advertising, bar spendi
• Kuehnert v. Texstar Corp.
  412 F.2d 700· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-09 ·cited 58×
• Ungar v. Dunkin' Donuts OF Am., Inc.
  531 F.2d 1211· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-03 ·cited 55×
  The court held that proof of individual coercion is necessary to establish an illegal tie-in claim, and therefore, the district court erred in certifying a class based on alternative modes of proof like company policy or widespread acceptance.
• Semke v. Enid Auto. Dealers Ass'n
  456 F.2d 1361· 10th Cir.· 1972-03-13 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the state licensing statute, by itself, does not bar an antitrust suit, and that informing the jury of treble damages is error.
• Clement A. Evans & Co., Inc. v. McALPINE
  434 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a plaintiff in a Rule 10b-5 action must demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering fraud, considering their sophistication and access to information.
• Cal. Pac. Bank v. Small Bus. Admin.
  557 F.2d 218· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-13 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the bank's 'Loss Collateral Plan' violated the Small Business Act and SBA regulations, and the SBA was not estopped from asserting illegality due to the bank's failure to demonstrate affirmative misconduct.
• Transcon. GAS Pipe Line Corp. v. The Mobile Drilling Barge or Vessel Known As MR. Charlie
  424 F.2d 684· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-06 ·cited 49×
  The court held that both the drilling company (ODECO) and the lease operator (SIGNAL) were concurrently negligent in causing damage to a pipeline, and that SIGNAL was not entitled to contractual indemnity from ODECO for its own negligence. The dismissal of claims against co-owner
• Can-Am Petroleum Co. v. Beck
  331 F.2d 371· 10th Cir.· 1964-05-04 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the principal judgment for plaintiffs but remanded the award of costs and attorneys' fees for further consideration, finding that Mrs. Beck was not in pari delicto nor an underwriter under the Securities Act.
• Thi-Hawaii, Inc. v. First Commerce Fin. Corp.
  627 F.2d 991· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 45×
  A plaintiff's complete involvement in the formation of an allegedly illegal antitrust scheme bars recovery of treble damages and equitable relief, even if the in pari delicto defense is inapplicable.
• Nw. Oil Co. v. Socony-Vacuum OIL Co., Inc.
  138 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1943-12-07 ·cited 44×
  A plaintiff cannot recover damages under the Clayton Act if they participated in the illegal conspiracy or failed to prove actual pecuniary loss, as damages must be directly sustained and not merely passed on to consumers.
• Columbia Nitrogen Corp. v. Royster Co.
  451 F.2d 3· 4th Cir.· 1971-10-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that evidence of trade usage and course of dealing should have been admitted to explain or supplement the contract terms, entitling Columbia to a new trial on the contract claim, but affirmed the judgment on the antitrust issues.
• Mallis v. Bankers Tr. Co.
  615 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-25 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the plaintiff's burden of due diligence and good faith for a Rule 10b-5 claim and in allowing testimony regarding usury as a defense. The court also found error in the admission of evidence regarding the plainti
• Oceanic Villas, Inc. v. Godson
  148 Fla. 454· Fla.· 1941-11-14 ·cited 42×
  A lease procured by fraud is not binding, and a clause stating no representations were made does not prevent a claim of fraud in the inducement.
• E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Hadley
  901 F.2d 979· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-21 ·cited 40×
  A bankruptcy trustee lacks standing to assert claims belonging to specific customer creditors when those claims are not owed to the bankrupt estate itself.
• Solomon Katz v. Amos Treat & Co.
  411 F.2d 1046· 2d Cir.· 1969-05-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the dismissal of the unregistered stock sale claim was error for some defendants but affirmed for others, and reversed the dismissal of fraud claims.
• Wilson P. Abraham Constr. Corp. v. Tex. Indus., Inc.
  604 F.2d 897· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-16 ·cited 39×
  The court should recognize a right of contribution among unintentional violators of antitrust laws, absent proof that it would frustrate the laws' purposes.
• Martina Theatre Corp. v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc.
  278 F.2d 798· 2d Cir.· 1960-05-13 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint seeking equitable relief to set aside a settlement and release was properly dismissed because, even if the settlement was procured by fraud or duress, the plaintiff had adequate remedies at law and had not demonstrated a sufficient ba
• John R. Lewis Inc. v. Hal C. Newman
  446 F.2d 800· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-15 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the judgment must be modified to require plaintiffs to surrender the unregistered shares upon satisfaction of the award, but affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
• Waylander-Peterson Co. v. Great N. Ry. Co.
  201 F.2d 408· 8th Cir.· 1953-01-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the contractor's motions, in instructing the jury on res ipsa loquitur, or in granting indemnity to the railway company over contribution, as the contractor's negligence was primary and active.
• Ebeling v. Woods
  175 F.2d 242· 8th Cir.· 1949-06-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Administrator could seek restitution for rent overcharges under the Emergency Price Control Act even after its expiration, as the Act's saving clause preserved such rights.
• Bemis v. Loftin
  127 Fla. 515· Fla.· 1937-03-23 ·cited 38×
  Alice McCormick Bemis sought to set aside a 1896 annulment decree of her marriage to H.E. Bemis, claiming the decree was void due to lack of personal jurisdiction and fraud, in order to claim dower rights in his estate. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismiss
• Harris v. Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D.
  789 So. 2d 405· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-06-06 ·cited 37×
  Harris and others appealed summary judgment dismissing their tortious interference claims against Nutricology and Levine. The trial court found the underlying contract between Harris and Dr. Gonzalez void as violative of Florida public policy because it required the physician to
• Woolf v. S. D. Cohn & Co. & Sidney D. Cohn
  515 F.2d 591· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-03 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the in pari delicto defense is not automatically barred in securities fraud cases but requires a careful balancing of the plaintiff's conduct against the objectives of the securities laws.
• Castro v. Sangles
  637 So. 2d 989· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-06-07 ·cited 36×
  The Castros hired an unlicensed contractor to build a duplex and then obtained a building permit by falsely swearing they were owner-builders with no contractor involved. When the work proved defective, they sued for breach of contract. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that
• Premier Elec. Constr. Co. v. Miller-Davis Co. & St. Arnaud Elec. Co.
  422 F.2d 1132· 7th Cir.· 1970-03-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that no contract was formed in the contract action because the parties' communications constituted negotiations, not a binding agreement. In the antitrust action, the court held that the dismissal was erroneous as the pleadings alleged a per se violation of the She
• Utah State Univ. OF Agric. & Applied Sci. v. Bear
  549 F.2d 164· 10th Cir.· 1977-01-24 ·cited 33×
  The court held that violations of self-regulatory organization rules do not create private causes of action absent specific statutory authorization or allegations of fraud, and that claims under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Regulation T also failed due to lack of scienter or th
• Olin's Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Royal Cont'l Hotels, Inc.
  187 So. 2d 349· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-05-27 ·cited 33×
  Olin's Rent-A-Car System sought reversal of summary judgment in an indemnification action by Royal Continental Hotels, which had paid a judgment to hotel invitees injured due to Olin's negligence. The court affirmed, holding that Olin was liable under common law indemnity princip
• Bortell v. White Mountains Ins. Grp., Ltd.
  2 So. 3d 1041· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-01-28 ·cited 32×
  An insurance agent appeals the dismissal of his complaint against insurance companies and individuals, claiming they were unauthorized to conduct business in Florida and thus interfered with his ability to sell their products. The court affirmed the dismissal of all three counts—
• Aleta G. Costen v. Pauline's Sportswear, Inc.
  391 F.2d 81· 9th Cir.· 1968-02-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a motion to dismiss, when accompanied by matters outside the pleadings that are not excluded by the court, must be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.
  150 F.2d 877· 7th Cir.· 1945-08-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while substantial evidence supported the jury's finding of a conspiracy under the Sherman Act, the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the amount of damages proximately caused by the conspiracy, thus requiring reversal.
• Kirkpatrick v. Parker
  136 Fla. 689· Fla.· 1939-03-14 ·cited 30×
  This case addresses whether an adult woman can sue for seduction if she consented to the relationship, even if induced by "arts, persuasions and misrepresentations." The court held that without allegations of force, duress, or a controlling relationship, the woman is considered i
• Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Milliken & Co.
  690 F.2d 380· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a party cannot profit from its own wrongdoing, and therefore, the plaintiff should not recover royalties paid to Leesona, despite the majority's disposition of other issues.
• Crest Auto Supplies, Inc. v. ERO Mfg. Co.
  360 F.2d 896· 7th Cir.· 1966-05-20 ·cited 29×
  The court held that plaintiffs' antitrust claims were properly dismissed or barred by the pari delicto doctrine, and that the defendant's counterclaims were supported by sufficient evidence for summary judgment.
• Wash. State Bowling Proprietors Ass'n, Inc. v. Pac. Lanes, Inc.
  356 F.2d 371· 9th Cir.· 1966-02-02 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the jury's findings of Sherman Act violations, including group boycotts and monopolization, were supported by sufficient evidence, and that damages were properly awarded despite some procedural irregularities due to waiver.