In Pari Delicto

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

• United States Football League v. Nat'l Football League
  842 F.2d 1335· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the jury's findings were supported by the evidence and that the USFL's claims of antitrust violations and predatory conduct by the NFL were not substantiated.
• Chicago v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
  280 F.2d 110· 8th Cir.· 1960-08-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Car Service Rules did not waive indemnity or contribution rights, and that both railroads were concurrently negligent, entitling the plaintiff railroad to contribution but not indemnity.
• James v. DuBREUIL
  500 F.2d 155· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court properly applied the defenses of unclean hands and in pari delicto to bar the plaintiff's suit, affirming the dismissal.
• Adolph Coors Co. v. A & S Wholesalers, Inc.
  561 F.2d 807· 10th Cir.· 1977-07-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania, which overruled the Schwinn per se rule, applies retroactively and requires a rule of reason analysis for vertical territorial restrictions. The court also remanded the issue of damages from the
• The Ala. Great S. R.R. Co. v. Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co.
  493 F.2d 979· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the defendant was supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motions for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial.
• P.C.B. P'ship v. The City OF Largo
  549 So. 2d 738· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-09-27 ·cited 24×
  P.C.B. Partnership challenged the dismissal of its amended complaint arising from the City of Largo's failure to construct a curvilinear road pursuant to a land disposition agreement. The court affirmed dismissal of the original claims but reversed and remanded, holding that the
• Stern v. Merrill Lynch
  603 F.2d 1073· 4th Cir.· 1979-07-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that investors have an implied private right of action against brokers for violations of margin requirements under § 7 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation T, provided the investors are not knowing participants in the violation.
• Javelin Corp. v. Uniroyal, Inc.
  546 F.2d 276· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-12 ·cited 24×
  A plaintiff is barred from recovery in an antitrust action only if the illegal conspiracy would not have been formed but for the plaintiff's participation, and this participation must be equal to and a substantial factor in the conspiracy's formation.
• Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., Inc.
  524 F.2d 1064· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-30 ·cited 24×
  An underwriter of commercial paper is liable for losses sustained by customers due to issuer default if the underwriter breached its duty to conduct a reasonable investigation, even if the underwriter honestly believed financial statements were accurate.
• Baker v. Nason
  236 F.2d 483· 5th Cir.· 1956-08-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict based on mutual fraud, as the evidence did not support such a finding, and the case presented factual issues requiring submission to a jury.
• Wolfson v. Baker
  623 F.2d 1074· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that nonmutual collateral estoppel was properly applied to establish the appellant's knowledge of the illegality of his stock sales, and that the in pari delicto defense barred his claim under NYSE Rule 405.
• First Beverages v. Royal Crown Cola Co.
  612 F.2d 1164· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court properly applied the rule of reason to vertical territorial restrictions and that any error in admitting evidence related to the pari delicto or unclean hands defenses was harmless.
• Joe H. Schneider in Bankr. of the Est. of Morgan Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Dutch O'Neal and George A. Toney
  243 F.2d 914· 8th Cir.· 1957-05-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the trustee, standing in the bankrupt's shoes, could not recover illegally paid commissions due to the pari delicto doctrine, the trustee could potentially recover under Section 70(e) of the Bankruptcy Act on behalf of creditors if the transfers were voi
• CVD v. Raytheon Co.
  769 F.2d 842· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the threat of unfounded trade secrets litigation in bad faith, used to exact a licensing agreement, can constitute a violation of antitrust laws, provided other elements of the violation are proven.
• In re Leasing Consultants Inc. v. George Feldman in Bankr. of Leasing Consultants Inc.
  592 F.2d 103· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-25 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the trustee in bankruptcy was authorized to recover illegal payments made by the bankrupt corporation, and that the doctrine of in pari delicto did not bar such recovery on behalf of creditors.
• Gen. Leaseways, Inc. v. Nat'l Truck Leasing Ass'n
  830 F.2d 716· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the jury's finding that General Leaseways bore substantially equal responsibility for the antitrust violations was supported by sufficient evidence, and that the jury instructions, despite a minor omission, conveyed the correct message.
• Snead v. United States Trucking Corp.
  380 So. 2d 1075· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-02-18 ·cited 19×
  In this stockholders' derivative suit, the court held that a lease extension agreement executed by corporate officers with conflicting interests is voidable even without proof of actual fraud when the transaction was not arms-length. The trial court's judgment denying rescission
• Petit Paul Dorestin and Jeannette K. Dorestin v. Hollywood Imports, Inc.
  45 So. 3d 819· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-08-11 ·cited 18×
  The Dorestins purchased a vehicle from Maroone Honda after participating in fraud by falsifying employment information on a credit application. A jury found Maroone liable for fraudulent inducement and FDUTPA violations, but the trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the ve
• Byron v. Clay
  867 F.2d 1049· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-14 ·cited 18×
  The First Amendment does not protect a 'ghost employee' from being fired for political reasons, especially when reinstatement would violate state criminal law and mock the amendment's purpose.
• Stephenson v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc.
  839 F.2d 1095· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a plaintiff's failure to read account statements and timely complain about unauthorized trades, despite extensive financial knowledge, constituted recklessness, barring a Rule 10b-5 claim and supporting equitable defenses.
• United States v. Farrell
  606 F.2d 1341· D.C. Cir.· 1979-08-27 ·cited 18×
  A court will not aid a wrongdoer in recovering money voluntarily paid as part of an illegal contract, based on public policy, even if the money was an instrumentality of a crime.
• Memorex Corp. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
  555 F.2d 1379· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a plaintiff's illegality directed against the defendant is not a defense to an antitrust action, as it does not negate antitrust injury and the defendant has other remedies like a counterclaim.
• Gordon v. duPONT Glore Forgan Inc.
  487 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a customer's knowledge of their undermargined account and failure to act bars recovery for the broker's breach of fiduciary duty, and that no implied private right of action exists under NYSE rules for such situations.
• Troy S. Morris & the Travelers Indem. Co. v. UHL & Lopez Eng'rs, Inc.
  442 F.2d 1247· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent based on industry standards that were not proven to apply to successive pole mountings. The court also held that the United States was not entitled to tort indemnity from Uhl & Lopez becau
• Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co.
  276 F.2d 766· 6th Cir.· 1960-04-04 ·cited 18×
  A requirements contract for a substantial volume of goods over an extended period, which effectively forecloses competition, violates Section 3 of the Clayton Act and is unenforceable, even if the parties are not equally culpable.
• Jewel TEA Co., Inc. v. Local Unions NOS. 189
  274 F.2d 217· 7th Cir.· 1960-01-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a conspiracy between unions and a trade association to restrict retail meat market operating hours, even if involving labor agreements, can violate the Sherman Antitrust Act if it restrains interstate commerce and is not solely for employee welfare.
• Earth Trades, Inc. v. T & G Corp.
  108 So. 3d 580· Fla.· 2013-01-24 ·cited 17×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a party's knowledge that a contractor is unlicensed is legally insufficient to establish the in pari delicto defense in a breach of contract action under Florida Statute § 489.128. The Court resolved a direct conflict between the Fifth and Thir
• McADAM v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
  896 F.2d 750· 3d Cir.· 1990-02-13 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the jury's award on the UCC counts was duplicative and unsustainable because it exceeded the plaintiff's net loss after accounting for refunds.
• Burton v. McMillan
  52 Fla. 469· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 17×
  Beverly H. Burton and his wife Mary A. Burton sued to recover real and personal property they conveyed to A. M. McMillan, a county clerk, in exchange for his promise not to prosecute Beverly for alleged embezzlement. The Florida Supreme Court held that Mary's deed was obtained by
• Sw. Marine, Inc. v. Campbell Indus.
  732 F.2d 744· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that insufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of Southwest Marine's 'truly complete involvement' in the antitrust scheme, and that Southwest Marine was entitled to attorney's fees as a prevailing party.
• Pinto Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Motor Dispatch, Inc.
  649 F.2d 530· 7th Cir.· 1981-05-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that applying collateral estoppel to bind defendants to issues decided against other defendants in a prior trial violated due process because the defendants did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues.
• Bernstein v. Universal Pictures, Inc.
  517 F.2d 976· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint sua sponte based on exclusive NLRB jurisdiction, as the composers' status as employees or independent contractors presented a disputed issue of fact. The court also found that the Garmon preemption doctrine
• Goldman v. Bank OF the Commonwealth
  467 F.2d 439· 6th Cir.· 1972-09-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a borrower who knowingly engages in transactions violating Regulation U cannot recover damages for those violations, even if the bank also failed to follow proper procedures.
• Burnell Keath Uptagrafft v. United States
  315 F.2d 200· 4th Cir.· 1963-03-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that neither the Federal Tort Claims Act nor general principles of indemnity provide a basis for an employee to seek indemnity or exoneration from the United States for liabilities incurred while acting within the scope of employment, absent an express contract.
• Royall v. Yudelevit
  268 F.2d 577· D.C. Cir.· 1959-06-04 ·cited 16×
  A borrower who enters into a usurious contract with an unlicensed lender, violating a statute designed for protection, may recover damages sustained from a foreclosure resulting from that void contract.
• Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Fed. Express, Inc.
  136 F.2d 35· 6th Cir.· 1943-06-03 ·cited 16×
  A tort-feasor cannot seek indemnity from another joint tort-feasor when their concurrent negligence injured a third party, as they are considered equally culpable.
• Rosenberg v. Hano
  121 F.2d 818· 3d Cir.· 1941-06-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim under Section 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was improperly filed because the alleged misrepresentation did not affect the stock price, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the fraud under
• Cooper v. Paris
  413 So. 2d 772· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-03-15 ·cited 15×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's sanctions order, holding that the CFPB's repeated disobedience of discovery orders and obstructionist tactics during depositions warranted the striking of its claims against the service-providing defendants.
• Joseph J. Lawler in Bankruptcy for Frank E. Mower, II v. Gilliam
  569 F.2d 1283· 4th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the defendants offered and sold unregistered securities in violation of Section 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, and the private offering exemption was unavailable because the investor lacked access to necessary information.
• Dahl v. Billy J. "B.J." Pinter
  787 F.2d 985· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the in pari delicto defense bars a plaintiff's recovery when they bear substantially equal responsibility for securities law violations and barring suit does not significantly interfere with enforcement.
• Rothberg v. Sanford Rosenbloom and Sanford M. Rosenbloom For the Estate of David Rosenbloom
  771 F.2d 818· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the joint venture violated Rule 10b-5 by trading on material nonpublic information without a proper duty to disclose or abstain.
• The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  747 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-09 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had raised serious questions regarding the legality of the defendants' antitrust violations and that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs.
• Wigand v. Flo-Tek, Inc.
  609 F.2d 1028· 2d Cir.· 1979-10-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction under the Securities Act of 1933 but not diversity jurisdiction, and that the breach of contract claim should have been dismissed. Liability under Section 12(2) was affirmed, but the damages calculation was reversed and remande
• Woolf v. S. D. Cohn & Co. & Sidney D. Cohn
  521 F.2d 225· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the in pari delicto defense is not applicable in this securities fraud case because the plaintiffs' fault was not equal, simultaneous, and vital to the scheme, and disallowing the defense furthers the remedial purposes of the securities laws.
• Acanfora v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Montgomery Cnty.
  491 F.2d 498· 4th Cir.· 1974-02-07 ·cited 14×
  Acanfora's public statements about his homosexuality were protected by the First Amendment, but his intentional material omissions on his employment application barred him from relief.
• Ramsey v. The United Mine Workers OF Am.
  481 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove an antitrust conspiracy, holding that the district judge's findings were not clearly erroneous and that his prior statement regarding a potential conspiracy under a preponderance standard was dict
• Chakford v. Sturm
  65 So. 2d 864· Fla.· 1953-06-05 ·cited 14×
  In this 1953 Florida Supreme Court case, borrowers sought to recover the entire principal and interest of a usurious loan in which they were charged excessive bonuses and interest. The Court held that under Florida's usury statute (Section 687.07, F.S.A.), when a lender charges m
• Moore v. Mead Serv. Co.
  184 F.2d 338· 10th Cir.· 1950-07-28 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment because the harm was caused by the appellant's own illegal acts, precluding recovery under antitrust laws.
• Tire Sales Corp. v. Cities Serv. OIL Co.
  637 F.2d 467· 7th Cir.· 1980-10-07 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict against the plaintiff on its antitrust claims and in granting summary judgment on the defendant's counterclaim, reversing both and remanding for trial.
• Curtis v. CIA.
  272 F.2d 235· 3d Cir.· 1959-02-24 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the vessel owner's knowledge of substandard cargo discharge methods precluded its right to indemnity from the stevedore.