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

• Jacobson v. Rose
  592 F.2d 515· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-29 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint to seek actual damages, and that the award of statutory damages was properly joint and several. However, the court reversed and remanded regarding the good faith defense fo
• Willey v. W. J. Hoggson Corp.
  90 Fla. 343· Fla.· 1925-10-17 ·cited 50×
  The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal brought by trustees and beneficiaries of a so-called "common law trust" challenging a prior foreclosure decree that resulted in the sale of valuable property. The Court held that the purported trust was actually a co-partnership that
• In re Rimgale v. Rimgale
  669 F.2d 426· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-18 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the 'best interests' test in § 1325(a)(4) compares plan payments to Chapter 7 liquidation value, not potential post-liquidation collection, and that the good faith requirement under § 1325(a)(3) requires meaningful payments to unsecured creditors, necessitatin
• Hartman v. United States
  538 F.2d 1336· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-30 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the jury's verdict finding the plaintiff a "responsible person" liable for unpaid withholding taxes was supported by substantial evidence, and the district court did not err in submitting the case to the jury or in its evidentiary and instructional rulings.
• 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
• Bermil Corp. v. Sawyer
  353 So. 2d 579· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-12-06 ·cited 48×
  Bermil Corporation and related parties appealed three consolidated jury verdicts arising from a failed mortgage brokerage transaction that the court found constituted a disguised usurious loan. The court affirmed judgments against Bermil and Leeds for breach of brokerage contract
• Mondello v. Torres
  47 So. 3d 389· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-11-17 ·cited 46×
  In this Florida family law appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed equitable distribution issues in a dissolution of marriage proceeding between Rodney Mondello and Maria Torres. The court affirmed the trial court's characterization of Wife's inherited and separatel
• Finch v. City OF Vernon
  877 F.2d 1497· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-21 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed judgments for retaliatory discharge and battery, vacated a defamation damages award for a new trial, and affirmed other judgments notwithstanding the verdict.
• Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc. v. Anthony J. Clemente as Dir. of the Dep't of Env't Res. Mgmt.
  467 So. 2d 348· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-03-12 ·cited 46×
  This consolidated appeal addresses environmental liability for toxic waste contamination at a former wood-treating facility in Miami. The court upheld a preliminary injunction requiring multiple parties to remove toxic sludge threatening groundwater, but reversed contempt finding
• Operating Eng'rs Pension Tr. v. Reed
  726 F.2d 513· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-17 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Trust is entitled to attorney's fees and interest on unpaid contributions under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2), and that the individual owner is not jointly liable for contributions due after his business incorporated.
• Gen. Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Hercules Constr. Co.
  385 F.2d 13· 8th Cir.· 1967-10-24 ·cited 44×
  A surety's liability is joint and several, allowing suit against the surety alone even if the principal is not formally found liable in the same action. The method of calculating damages based on actual extra costs incurred due to the breach is permissible if reasonable.
• Porello v. United States
  153 F.2d 605· 2d Cir.· 1946-01-10 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the United States and the stevedoring company were jointly and severally liable for the stevedore's injuries, and the stevedoring company was contractually obligated to indemnify the United States for the full amount of damages.
• REY v. Philip Morris, Inc.
  75 So. 3d 378· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-11-30 ·cited 43×
  In this Engle-progeny tobacco case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed in part a summary judgment that had dismissed a civil conspiracy/fraudulent concealment claim against three tobacco defendants, holding that brand usage is not required for conspiracy claims even th
• Fincher Motor Sales, Inc. v. Cecile Lakin
  156 So. 2d 672· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-10-08 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the indemnity action for failure to join the lessee of the vehicle as an indispensable party.
• Cohen v. Arvin
  878 So. 2d 403· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-06-09 ·cited 42×
  Cohen & Cohen sued former partners Harvey Cohen and Gary Juda for tortious interference with business relationships, alleging they conspired with attorney Kenneth Arvin to steal clients and form a competing firm. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment against Cohen & Cohen
• Northern J. Calloway v. The Marvel Ent. Grp.
  854 F.2d 1452· 2d Cir.· 1988-08-12 ·cited 42×
  The court held that sanctions under Rule 11 were properly imposed on an attorney and his firm for pursuing a baseless claim, but sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 were reversed. The court also reinstated the client's appeal regarding Rule 11 sanctions.
• Joia v. Jo-Ja Serv. Corp.
  817 F.2d 908· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the employer's motions for directed verdict and judgment n.o.v. were properly denied, and that the water boat owner was not entitled to limit its liability due to privity and knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. Joint and several liability applies under mar
• Mardan Corp. v. C.G.C. Music, Ltd.
  804 F.2d 1454· 9th Cir.· 1986-11-25 ·cited 42×
  The dissenting judge would hold that a uniform federal rule requiring express releases is necessary for CERCLA claims, and would reverse the grant of summary judgment. The majority, however, incorporated state law and affirmed summary judgment.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gluek Brewing Co.
  144 F.2d 847· 8th Cir.· 1944-08-07 ·cited 42×
• Paul v. Commercial Bank of Ocala
  69 Fla. 62· Fla.· 1915-02-03 ·cited 42×
  In this second appeal of a partnership liability case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment against R. H. Paul for a promissory note executed by S. A. Rawls & Company, holding that Paul was a member of the firm and liable for the debt. The court addressed multiple eviden
• Batlemento v. Dove Fountain, Inc.
  593 So. 2d 234· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-12-27 ·cited 41×
  The Maniacis purchased a Casa Mia restaurant franchise from defendants Batlemento and Badalamente, and after the business failed, sued for fraud, breach of contract, and violation of the Business Opportunities Act. The jury awarded $147,000 in compensatory damages and $147,000 in
• United States v. Masters
  924 F.2d 1362· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the defendants' conviction under RICO was proper, but remanded for resentencing and reconsideration of a fine due to issues with the Sentencing Guidelines and statutory factors. The court also affirmed the forfeiture order.
• Lowen v. Tower Asset Mgmt., Inc.
  829 F.2d 1209· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-17 ·cited 41×
  The court held that investments of ERISA plan assets in companies where defendants had an interest, and from which defendants received fees, violated ERISA's prohibited transaction provisions. It affirmed summary judgment against the defendants.
• Stabilisierungsfonds FUR Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distribs. Pty. Ltd.
  647 F.2d 200· D.C. Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the District of Columbia long-arm statute authorizes personal jurisdiction over the Australian defendants and that the district court improperly dismissed the claims against the U.S. defendants as indispensable parties.
• Over THE Rd. Drivers, Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co.
  637 F.2d 816· 1st Cir.· 1980-12-10 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the insurance policy did not create joint and several liability for premium payments among the insured companies, and thus Over The Road was only liable for its own premiums.
• Gouty v. Schnepel
  795 So. 2d 959· Fla.· 2001-09-13 ·cited 40×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that settlement proceeds from a settling defendant cannot be set off against a judgment for economic damages unless the settling defendant is found to be jointly and severally liable for those damages. The court rejected the First District's interpr
• Palumbo v. Moore
  777 So. 2d 1177· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-02-16 ·cited 40×
  The appellate court reversed a dismissal of a shareholder's cross-claim and third-party complaint. The court found that the shareholder had adequately stated claims for declaratory relief and fraud in the inducement regarding his personal guarantees for company loans.
• Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
  772 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 40×
• Davis v. W. Cmty. Hosp.
  755 F.2d 455· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Dr. Davis's letters were not protected speech, reversing his First Amendment claim, but affirmed his procedural due process claim. It also reversed his libel claim due to the jury finding the statements true and remanded for nominal damages on his equal protec
• Stathos v. Bowden
  728 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-22 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and damage award, finding no reversible error in the exclusion of evidence, jury instructions, or the award of attorney's fees, and amended the judgment for clarity.
• Brown v. United States
  591 F.2d 1136· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-23 ·cited 40×
  Both responsible officers of a corporation are liable for the full amount of unpaid withholding taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 6672, and their liability is joint and several.
• Mfrs'. Leasing, Ltd. v. Fla. Dev. & Attractions, Inc.
  330 So. 2d 171· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-03-26 ·cited 40×
  The court reversed the dismissal of a lessor's action against a guarantor, holding that the signatory was personally bound by the guaranty contract despite adding his title as president, as the contract did not indicate an intent to bind only the corporation.
• Jerome H. Moore and Mildred v. Moore
  360 F.2d 353· 4th Cir.· 1965-12-07 ·cited 40×
  A criminal conviction for tax evasion collaterally estops the taxpayer from denying fraud in a subsequent civil suit for fraud penalties, but this estoppel does not extend to the taxpayer's spouse who was not a party to the criminal proceeding.
• Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. Hargrave
  129 F.2d 655· 10th Cir.· 1942-03-24 ·cited 40×
  The dissenting judge believes the attorney's fees awarded were excessive given the good faith nature of the employer's defense and the relatively small amount in dispute.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Marvine Calloway
  201 So. 3d 753· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-09-23 ·cited 39×
  In this tobacco products liability case, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a multi-million dollar judgment against tobacco companies and remanded for a new trial, holding that plaintiff's counsel's numerous inflammatory and improper closing arguments created a
• Angeles DE LA Concha v. Herculano Pinero, Jr.
  104 So. 2d 25· Fla.· 1958-06-27 ·cited 39×
  A guest passenger sued a driver for gross negligence after a collision with a truck. The trial court properly refused the defendant's requested jury instruction that would have absolved him of liability if the truck driver's statutory violation was a proximate cause, and the Flor
• Bedford Jones v. McConnon & Co.
  100 Fla. 1158· Fla.· 1930-11-07 ·cited 39×
  Bedford Jones executed an absolute and unconditional guaranty contract guaranteeing payment of goods sold to J.E. Ford by McConnon & Company. Jones challenged the guaranty on grounds that the stated consideration of $1.00 was never paid and that the guaranty had not been accepted
• Sims v. Jefferson Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc.
  778 F.2d 1068· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-18 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a private racetrack cannot unilaterally exclude a licensed permittee without following state racing commission rules and procedures, and that such exclusion may constitute state action actionable under § 1983 if state officials are involved. The court also rem
• United OF Omaha Life Ins. Co. & Tower Mortg. Corp. v. NOB Hill Assocs.
  450 So. 2d 536· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-04-10 ·cited 38×
  The Court held that evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had it been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
• WM. G. ROE & Co. v. Armour & Co.
  414 F.2d 862· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-15 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not err in reconsidering its prior causation findings on remand and that apportionment of damages between the defendant's fluorine gas emissions and a natural freeze was permissible under Florida law, with adequate evidentiary support.
• Spencer Ladd's, Inc. v. Lehman
  167 So. 2d 731· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-10-06 ·cited 38×
  Spencer Ladd's, Inc. appealed a trial court's conditional grant of a new trial requiring it to remit punitive damages or face retrial. The appellate court held that while the original order was defective for failing to specify the ground for new trial, the amended order validly s
• Sheehan v. Renne Emsley Allred
  146 So. 2d 760· Fla. 1st DCA· 1962-11-15 ·cited 38×
  In this automobile negligence case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict for defendants, holding that the trial court erred by denying plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability. The court ruled that where evidence clearly establis
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pinkerton's Nat. Detective Agency, Inc.
  202 F.2d 230· 9th Cir.· 1953-01-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that both the employer and the union can be held jointly and severally liable for back pay when both have engaged in discriminatory practices, even if the employer acted under union coercion. Furthermore, objections not raised before the National Labor Relations Bo
• White v. Gen. Motors Corp., Inc.
  908 F.2d 675· 10th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 37×
  The court held that while sanctions were warranted under Rule 11, the amount awarded was excessive and lacked proper consideration of deterrence and joint/several liability, requiring remand.
• United States v. Monsanto Co.
  858 F.2d 160· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-07 ·cited 37×
  The court should have required the district court to allocate cleanup costs among defendants, rather than allowing a separate suit for contribution.
• Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Tr. Co.
  206 F.2d 336· 9th Cir.· 1953-07-27 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the dismissal of a complaint does not automatically require dismissal of a counterclaim, especially when the counterclaim has an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
• United States v. Bane
  948 F.3d 1290· 11th Cir.· 2020-01-24 ·cited 36×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the Banes' motions, holding that their claims were procedurally defaulted because they failed to raise them on direct appeal and did not establish cause and prejudice or a jurisdictional error.
• Birge v. Charron
  107 So. 3d 350· Fla.· 2012-11-21 ·cited 36×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the rebuttable presumption of negligence attaching to rear drivers in rear-end motor vehicle collisions can be rebutted by evidence that the front driver was negligent. The Court resolved a conflict between the Fifth District and Fourth Distric
• Royal Mende Basel & Steven Kane as Co-Plenary Guardians of the person & Prop. of Mark Victor Basel v. McFARLAND & Sons, Inc.
  815 So. 2d 687· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-04-05 ·cited 36×
  Royal Basel and Steven Kane, as guardians of Mark Basel who suffered severe permanent brain damage in a 1994 vehicle accident, appealed the trial court's application of the October 1, 1999 amendment to section 768.81 (limiting joint and several liability) to their pre-amendment c
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Coker
  714 So. 2d 423· Fla.· 1998-05-14 ·cited 36×
  Florida Supreme Court held that a negligent security action is not an action based on an intentional tort under section 768.81(4)(b), and the trial court properly excluded the criminal non-party tortfeasor from the verdict form.