Joint And Several Liability

986 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 19 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glovegold, Ltd.
  135 F.R.D. 139· M.D. Fla.· 1994-03-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a motion to transfer filed late in proceedings, with significant uncertainty about the ability to arrest the vessel even if transferred, should be denied.
• Groff v. Chandris, Inc.
  835 F. Supp. 1408· S.D. Fla.· 1993-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that under general maritime law, a jury cannot apportion fault to a non-party to the lawsuit.
• Univ. OF Miami v. All-Pro Athletic Surfaces, Inc.
  619 So. 2d 1034· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to enter a judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for the indivisible economic injury suffered by the University.
• Jeane E. Koebler v. Kieffer
  621 So. 2d 681· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-04-02 ·cited 2×
• Martin v. United States
  984 F.2d 1033· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that California's Proposition 51, which limits joint and several liability for non-economic damages, applies even when one tortfeasor's conduct is intentional and another's is negligent. The court also held that the mother and sister of a child who was abducted and
• Weeks v. L.R. Chaboudy, M.D.
  984 F.2d 185· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-26 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, affirming the district court's award of attorney's fees because the underlying liability finding was upheld.
• In re Ford v. Durkay
  967 F.2d 1047· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·cited 2×
  A claim is not contingent for bankruptcy estimation purposes simply because the debtor has a right to contribution from co-makers.
• Ferris v. Haymore
  967 F.2d 946· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The Federal Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act allows only one statutory damage award per plaintiff, even with multiple transferors involved in odometer fraud.
• A. Stucki Co. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.
  963 F.2d 360· Fed. Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the patent infringement damages limitation period and the RICO statute of limitations barred Stucki's claims against Buckeye.
• Anderson v. Potential Enters., Ltd.
  596 So. 2d 488· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-03-27 ·cited 2×
  Anderson appeals a foreclosure judgment on real property titled to a general partnership. The court vacates the judgment because the partnership itself was not named as a defendant, and the attempted foreclosure of individual partners' interests in partnership property was improp
• Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau v. Musick
  954 F.2d 575· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 2×
  A settlement agreement cannot bar subsequent actions for contribution by settling defendants against individuals who were not parties to the original suit.
• Bryant Murphy v. Tivoli Enters.
  953 F.2d 354· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while admitting telephone testimony and failing to provide a meaningful opportunity for counsel to object to a jury instruction response were errors, they did not constitute prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• Bernadine v. Feldhahn
  929 F.2d 1351· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a contingent lien from a divorce decree does not qualify for statutory interest under Iowa Code § 535.3, and that a collateralized assignment can constitute payment for subrogation under 11 U.S.C. § 509(a).
• Schultz v. The United States
  918 F.2d 164· Fed. Cir.· 1990-10-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government prevailed for purposes of awarding costs because it proved Schultz was a responsible person who willfully failed to pay employment taxes, even though the amount collected was less than the original assessment.
• Ray v. Cutter Labs.
  744 F. Supp. 1124· M.D. Fla.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff cannot recover under traditional negligence or Florida's blood shield statute without proving proximate cause, which requires identifying the specific manufacturer of the product that caused the injury. Florida has not adopted alternative liability theories that would
• Tavery v. United States
  897 F.2d 1032· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Tax Court's vacated decision could not support collateral estoppel, and that spouses filing joint returns are not in privity for res judicata purposes. It also held that the IRS may issue separate deficiency notices to spouses who file joint returns.
• Williams v. Arai Hirotake, Ltd.
  731 F. Supp. 1557· S.D. Fla.· 1990-02-16 ·cited 2×
  An unqualified release of a first tortfeasor releases all other tortfeasors unless the release expressly provides otherwise, and this rule applies even when Florida statutes appear to contradict it.
• Taggart v. United States
  880 F.2d 867· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-21 ·cited 2×
  A broad release agreement, even if settling with a third party, precludes a subsequent suit against another potentially liable party if the release language is clear and unambiguous.
• Stifle v. Marathon Petroleum Co.
  876 F.2d 552· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-24 ·cited 2×
  An indemnity agreement is unenforceable if it shifts liability for a party's own negligence, and the value of a surrendered workers' compensation lien should be set off against a judgment.
• Calder Race Course, Inc. v. Ill. Union Ins.
  714 F. Supp. 1183· S.D. Fla.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 2×
  An insurer is liable for post-judgment interest on the entire judgment amount until its policy limits are paid or tendered, regardless of excess coverage or the excess carrier's control of the appeal, unless the insurer properly tenders its limits.
• Homeco Developments v. Markborough Props., Ltd.
  709 F. Supp. 1137· S.D. Fla.· 1989-03-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs had the capacity to sue, were real parties in interest, and had standing to bring antitrust claims, and that the complaint sufficiently alleged violations of antitrust laws and state law claims, denying the motion to dismiss.
• Brown v. Champeau
  537 So. 2d 1120· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed its prior decision in Boudreau v. General Accident to correct a manifest injustice, holding that a homeowner's insurance policy provided coverage for the named insured's vicarious liability for a minor's negligent use of another person'
• Nash v. Delbert Chandler
  859 F.2d 1210· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-27 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of attorney's fees and costs, finding no basis to revoke or modify it, despite the City and Hardy's complaints.
• Lyon v. The Ranger III
  858 F.2d 22· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's apportionment of fault and finding of negligence were legally correct, affirming the judgment.
• Tinsley v. Packard Truck Lines, Inc.
  846 F.2d 334· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 2×·via Solidary Liability
  A release discharging parties not specifically named therein is invalid under both Texas and Louisiana law, particularly when specific parties are typed onto a general release form.
• Karpay v. LAS Brisas Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  517 So. 2d 756· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-12-30 ·cited 2×
  A vendor under an agreement for deed can be held personally liable for condominium association common expense assessments, even if the vendee also has liability.
• Carlson v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc.
  693 F. Supp. 1073· S.D. Fla.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 2×
  The court denied motions to dismiss negligence, strict liability, and implied warranty claims, but granted dismissal for civil conspiracy claims due to lack of particularity. Motions to strike punitive damages were largely denied, except for those based on loss of consortium and
• The Bank OF NEW Orleans & Tr. Co. v. Monco Agency, Inc.
  823 F.2d 888· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-11 ·cited 2×·via Solidary Liability
  Litigation against defendants timely sued for the same loss interrupts prescription as to other defendants alleged to be liable in solido, even if claims arise from different sources of law.
• Dennis v. Pearl
  500 So. 2d 344· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court correctly entered an order of indemnification, finding the assuming grantee primarily liable and the original mortgagor secondarily liable.
• Elba Alvarado Aviles v. Burgos
  783 F.2d 270· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in determining co-primary coverage based on the Puerto Rico permissive use statute, as the lease agreement and policy language dictated the insurance obligations. The court also corrected calculation errors in the amended judgment.
• Feeley v. Stephen Lagergren, M.D.
  478 So. 2d 496· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-11-14 ·cited 2×
  Edith Feeley, as personal representative of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a trial court order transferring venue as to one defendant (Dr. Kohen) to his home county of Volusia. The Florida Court of Appeal reversed, holding that under Section 47.021, when multiple defenda
• Spearing v. Nat'l Iron Co.
  770 F.2d 87· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Ontario workmen's compensation law does not shield a U.S. affiliate of a Canadian employer from liability under Wisconsin tort law, and the district court erred in precluding damages against the U.S. affiliate.
• Boudreau v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Ins. Corp., Ltd.
  466 So. 2d 338· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-02-28 ·cited 2×
  Appellant Boudreau signed her minor son's driver license application, making her jointly liable for his negligent driving under Florida law. When her son caused an accident, she sought coverage under her husband's automobile liability insurance policy, claiming she was a "covered
• JSP Agency, Inc. v. Am. Sugar Ref. Co. OF NEW York
  752 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 2×
  FMC approval of a maritime agreement under Section 814 of the Shipping Act provides antitrust immunity but does not bind non-consenting parties to the agreement's terms. Furthermore, mere cooperation or appending an agreement does not constitute adoption or absorption that create
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bayles
  459 So. 2d 387· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-11-07 ·cited 2×
  State Farm appeals a judgment requiring it to pay uninsured motorist (UM) benefits where the injured party was injured by concurrent tortfeasors—one uninsured and one insured with liability limits equal to the claimant's UM coverage. The court reverses, holding that when one tort
• Jaworski v. Dewoody & Hamner, P.A.
  448 So. 2d 3· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred by ordering a new trial on liability for libel, and the consequence of the fundamental error should be a new trial on damages only.
• Blocker v. Wynn
  425 So. 2d 166· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-01-07 ·cited 2×
  In this wrongful death case arising from a tragic accident where a dump truck collided with a house being moved across a bridge, appellants (the house movers) appealed a jury verdict finding them 80% negligent. The court affirmed, rejecting appellants' argument that they should b
• Lecia Andersen v. Farmers Bank OF Clatonia
  640 F.2d 1347· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes that only one statutory penalty should be imposed per credit transaction, even with multiple obligors, to avoid a windfall and unintended Congressional results.
• Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Reiser
  391 So. 2d 706· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-12-11 ·cited 2×
  Vigilant Insurance Company and Child Guidance Clinic appeal a judgment holding them jointly and severally liable for the full amount of damages awarded to a psychiatric patient who was negligently treated by Dr. Reginald Berry during a period when he was employed by the clinic an
• Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Elec. Indus., Inc.
  630 F.2d 1123· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-21 ·cited 2×·via Solidary Liability
  The court held that the appellant's participation in a fraudulent scheme to overcharge the plaintiff warranted liability and that the award of damages and legal interest was proper.
• Fedders Distrib. Corp. v. BIG Four Inv. Corp.
  379 So. 2d 706· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the motion to dismiss should have been denied based on the complaint and attached exhibit.
• McDONALD v. Patton-Tully Transp. Co. & the M/V Kate Tully
  590 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's apportionment of lost wages between two defendants was erroneous, but its findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.
• McCAIN v. Clearview Dodge Sales, Inc.
  574 F.2d 848· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a third-party complaint under Rule 14 is improper if it does not establish a basis for the third-party defendant's liability to the defendant, and joint creditors are not indispensable parties under Rule 19.
• Tholen v. Harvis L. Carney
  555 F.2d 479· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-07 ·cited 2×
  An insurer's liability under uninsured motorist coverage is not diminished by the existence of other jointly liable insured motorists, but is limited by policy caps and state law regarding stacking.
• Akeley v. Beaumont Morgan and Randy Cooper
  332 So. 2d 647· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-05-25 ·cited 2×
• First Nat'l Bank OF Pompano Beach v. Joseph C. MacKey & Co.
  330 So. 2d 39· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it was error to enter judgment against two corporate defendants and error to omit interest on the debt. The judgment in favor of one broker was reversed and remanded, while the judgment for the other broker was affirmed.
• United States v. Everett Monte Cristo Hotel, Inc.
  524 F.2d 127· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to properly consider the guarantors' defense of unfulfilled condition precedent and remanded for further proceedings.
• Schoenfeld v. Neher
  453 F.2d 896· 10th Cir.· 1972-01-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parties were co-sureties, and while entitled to indemnity, they are only entitled to contribution based on proportionate shares, not full indemnity.
• Calvey v. United States
  448 F.2d 177· 6th Cir.· 1971-09-15 ·cited 2×
  An innocent partner is liable for tax fraud penalties incurred by the partnership, even if unaware of the fraud, under Michigan partnership law.
• Cont'l Elecs. Mfg. Co. v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
  447 F.2d 1174· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that under Texas law, where multiple tortfeasors cause an indivisible injury, they are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages, and the injured party can recover the full amount from any one tortfeasor.