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

• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. United States
  167 F.2d 107· 9th Cir.· 1948-03-31 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a motion for a new trial by a surety on a joint and several judgment tolls the time for appeal for the principals as well, conferring appellate jurisdiction.
• Budd v. J. Y. Gooch Co., Inc
  151 Fla. 262· Fla.· 1942-07-31 ·cited 11×
  In this case, homeowner R.D. Budd disputes liens filed by a contractor and architect after construction defects arose in his Miami Shores residence. The circuit court ultimately ruled against Budd and in favor of the contractor and architect, forcing Budd to pay their liens; the
• Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Ebert
  102 Fla. 641· Fla.· 1931-07-30 ·cited 11×
  In this wrongful death case, the plaintiff recovered $15,000 against two railroads and a signal operator for injuries resulting from a collision at a railroad crossing in Orlando, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and ordered a new trial, finding instructional error reg
• Springstead v. The Crawfordville State Bank
  63 Fla. 267· Fla.· 1912-01-01 ·cited 11×
  In this 1912 case, the Crawfordville State Bank sued multiple defendants on a promissory note for a stallion purchase. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and dismissed, holding that the trial court erred by allowing the plaintiff to dismiss the action against two of nine joint de
• Compulife Software, Inc. v. Binyomin Rutstein
  111 F.4th 1147· 11th Cir.· 2024-08-01 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to consider the copyrightability of the entire arrangement of Compulife's source code, requiring remand for new findings on the copyright infringement claim. However, the court affirmed the district court's judgme
• Exime v. E.W. Ventures, Inc.
  591 F. Supp. 2d 1364· S.D. Fla.· 2008-12-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a disputed issue of material fact exists regarding enterprise coverage under the FLSA, and the defendants' argument regarding a 'serial plaintiff' is frivolous.
• McELROY v. Alisha Whittington
  867 So. 2d 1241· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed an attorney's fee award granted to plaintiffs Alisha and Petrina Whittington after they prevailed in a personal injury case, holding that their settlement proposal to defendant James Wallace McElroy was defective because it failed to a
• ST. Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe
  699 So. 2d 1017· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-07-30 ·cited 10×
  St. Mary's Hospital appealed a medical malpractice arbitration award, challenging the statutory limits on non-economic damages and seeking a stay pending review. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the $250,000 non-economic damage cap applies per incident of malpractice
• Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Jesumene Frederic
  698 So. 2d 291· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-07-09 ·cited 10×
  Metropolitan Dade County appealed a wrongful death judgment for injuries caused by a Metro-Dade Police cruiser. The court affirmed liability but reversed the damages award, holding that the County could not be held jointly and severally liable under Florida law because its compar
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Am. Metals Exch. Corp.
  991 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1993-04-08 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment but vacated the disgorgement orders, remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount of disgorgement based on ill-gotten gains.
• Teamsters Joint Council NO. 83 v. Centra
  947 F.2d 115· 4th Cir.· 1991-10-22 ·cited 10×
  A control group's statutory duty to make interim withdrawal payments to a multi-employer pension fund continues pending arbitration, even when asserting defenses to liability.
• Kahma Jenkins v. The State OF Mo.
  931 F.2d 470· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-22 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's orders regarding funding procedures, asbestos abatement costs, monitoring committee operations, cost avoidance calculations, and construction budget increases for Central High School.
• Koster v. Perales
  903 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that both State and County defendants could be held jointly and severally liable for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as the plaintiffs were prevailing parties who achieved some of the benefits sought through litiga
• Alman v. Taunton Sportswear Mfg. Corp.
  857 F.2d 840· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-07 ·cited 10×
  An ambiguous order that fails to resolve all claims or clearly state the relief granted is not a final decision for purposes of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Nash v. Delbert Chandler
  848 F.2d 567· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the district court properly awarded attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs, the State of Texas, having intervened solely to defend a statute's constitutionality, cannot be held jointly and severally liable for those fees.
• Faison v. Nationwide Mortg. Corp.
  839 F.2d 680· D.C. Cir.· 1988-03-04 ·cited 10×
  The court granted rehearing on the issue of excessive compensatory damages, denying other issues, and remanded the cases to the trial court for evaluation of the excessive verdict claim.
• Roby v. Kingsley
  492 So. 2d 789· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-08-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on concurring cause and by limiting expert testimony, and that evidence of a prior homosexual relationship was inadmissible.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wayne Transp.
  776 F.2d 745· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-06 ·cited 10×
  The court enforced the NLRB's order, holding that the superseniority provision violated the NLRA and that the Gulton standard should be applied retroactively.
• Merrill Lynch v. First Nat'l Bank OF Little Rock
  774 F.2d 909· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the equitable principles of indemnity in Arkansas require Comex to indemnify FNB for all sums paid to Merrill Lynch, as Comex was the primary wrongdoer.
• Bower v. O'Hara
  759 F.2d 1117· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-17 ·cited 10×
  A guilty plea can have preclusive effect in subsequent civil litigation, estopping a party from contesting facts essential to the offense.
• Jones v. Williams Steel Indus., Inc.
  460 So. 2d 1004· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-12-20 ·cited 10×
  This case involves a subrogation action where Williams Steel Industries, which paid a joint judgment against itself and architect Jones, sought recovery from Jones for its proportionate share. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that subrogation—not contributio
• Richardson v. Knud Hansen Mem'l Hosp.
  744 F.2d 1007· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that recoveries against the government in a wrongful death action resulting from medical malpractice may exceed the $25,000 limitation prescribed by the Virgin Islands Torts Claims Act.
• Jennings v. The Metro. Gov't OF Nashville & Davidson Cnty. & John Brewer
  715 F.2d 1111· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-31 ·cited 10×
  The settlement agreement between the parties was intended to be a final disposition of all claims, thus precluding a subsequent award of attorneys' fees against Metro and Brewer.
• Riddell v. The Nat'l Democratic Party
  712 F.2d 165· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing joint and several liability or in calculating the lodestar for attorneys' fees, but did err by omitting consideration of travel time and time spent preparing the fee application.
• E.A.W. v. Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc.
  424 So. 2d 189· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-01-05 ·cited 10×
  A minor plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint against two hospitals in different counties, alleging in separate counts that each hospital independently caused an identical injury (a finger amputation) through the same conduct. The trial court severed the counts and tran
• Young C. Park v. Didden
  695 F.2d 626· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 10×
  A district court must conduct a careful, practical analysis under Rule 19 before dismissing an action for failure to join parties, and cannot dismiss based on conclusory labels like 'necessary' or 'indispensable' without such analysis.
• Carter v. Epsco, Inc.
  681 F.2d 1062· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-06 ·cited 10×·via Solidary Liability
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing cross-claims for indemnification based solely on jury findings of no negligence, as liability could arise from strict liability statutes.
• Manale v. City OF NEW Orleans
  673 F.2d 122· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 10×·via Solidary Liability
  The court held that the City was vicariously liable for a police sergeant's defamatory remarks made within the scope of his employment, and that the damages awarded were not inadequate.
• W. India Indus., Inc. v. Vance & Sons Amc-Jeep
  671 F.2d 1384· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-09 ·cited 10×
  An ocean carrier cannot recover unpaid freight from a party designated as shipper on a bill of lading by a freight forwarder without authority, especially when the carrier relies solely on the forwarder's representations without further inquiry.
• Bottazzi v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.
  664 F.2d 49· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the consolidation of the plaintiff's two suits was proper and that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's finding of negligence against the engine manufacturer.
• Barron v. United States
  654 F.2d 644· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 10×
  The United States, found liable for an employee's full damages due to its breach of duty, is entitled to indemnity from the government contractor employer based on their respective fault, and the employer is entitled to a jury trial on its share of fault.
• ST. Cloud Utils. v. Erick S. Moore
  355 So. 2d 446· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-02-14 ·cited 10×
  St. Cloud Utilities appeals a trial judge's ruling that interest on a modified judgment should commence from the original jury verdict date rather than from the date the amended judgment was entered. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that interest should accru
• Simonsen v. Barlo Plastics Co., Inc.
  551 F.2d 469· 1st Cir.· 1977-03-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a pre-verdict settlement with one defendant, even if substantial and in good faith, removes that defendant as an 'actual' defendant for purposes of New Hampshire's comparative negligence statute, thus reinstating joint and several liability for the remaining d
• Italiane v. Italiane
  342 So. 2d 1003· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-02-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the wife failed to establish her legal entitlement to the husband's entire interest in the Jefferson County property and that the husband may be entitled to special equity in the marital home, requiring further valuation.
• Huelsman v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  416 F.2d 477· 6th Cir.· 1969-10-03 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the Tax Court's decision, finding the petitioner jointly and severally liable for taxes on embezzled income due to her voluntary signature on a joint return.
• Ordner v. Reimold
  278 F.2d 532· 10th Cir.· 1960-05-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on combined and concurrent negligence because the evidence did not support such a theory.
• Commercial Credit Corp. v. Sorgel
  274 F.2d 449· 5th Cir.· 1960-01-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's findings regarding fraud and the treatment of assigned accounts as payment were not supported by sufficient evidence, and that certain ledger entries must be given effect.
• Zarati S. S. Co. v. Park Bridge Corp.
  154 F.2d 377· 2d Cir.· 1946-03-20 ·cited 10×
  Judgments for some defendants are not final and appealable if liability is intertwined and depends on the same factual or legal questions as other defendants.
• Cracowaner v. Carlton Nat'l Bank
  98 Fla. 792· Fla.· 1929-10-28 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that assumpsit will lie upon a promissory note under seal, overruling common law distinctions that treated sealed notes as specialties requiring action in covenant or debt. The Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act eliminated practical differences betw
• Potter v. Realty Sec. Corp.
  77 Fla. 768· Fla.· 1919-05-30 ·cited 10×
  The court reversed a judgment because the record did not affirmatively show that a special judge was properly appointed according to statute. The court also addressed issues regarding the completeness of a contract and improper judgment entry, indicating these would need to be re
• Laurence S. Schneider and Stephanie L. Schneider v. First Am. Bank
  336 So. 3d 43· Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-03-09 ·cited 9×
  Although Bruton v. United States requires severance in joint trials where a codefendant's confession inculpates the non-confessing defendant, the harmless error doctrine applies where both defendants' confessions are substantially identical and mutually inculpatory, especially wh
• Bechtel Corp. v. Batchelor
  250 So. 3d 187· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-06-20 ·cited 9×
  Bechtel Corporation appeals a jury verdict awarding $15.3 million in damages to Richard Batchelor, an FPL employee who developed mesothelioma allegedly from asbestos exposure at Turkey Point power plant where Bechtel worked as a contractor from 1974-1980. The Florida Third Distri
• Port Charlotte HMA, LLC v. Iala Suarez
  210 So. 3d 187· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-10-26 ·cited 9×
  In this medical malpractice appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of a statutory cap on noneconomic damages, agreeing with Fourth District precedent that the cap violates equal protection rights in personal injury cases. However, the court reversed the trial court's
• T & S Enters. Handicap Accessibility, Inc. v. Wink Indus. Maint. & Repair, Inc.
  11 So. 3d 411· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-05-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a third-party claim for contribution is not permissible under the current statutory scheme when the defendant can allocate fault to a non-party under section 768.81(3), Florida Statutes.
• Hibbard v. McGRAW
  918 So. 2d 967· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-12-02 ·cited 9×
  The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's award of attorney's fees to defendants and remanded for recalculation of damages, finding that defendants' settlement proposal was ambiguous as to which plaintiffs it addressed and that the trial court used an in
• Louis H. Anderson, M.D. & Louis H. Anderson, M.D., P.A. v. Ewing
  768 So. 2d 1161· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-09-13 ·cited 9×
  In this medical malpractice case arising from a complicated childbirth, the court affirmed the denial of Dr. Anderson's directed verdict motion, finding sufficient evidence of negligence. The court affirmed the trial court's set-off of the infant's settlement against the parents'
• Crowley v. Sunny's Plants, Inc.
  710 So. 2d 219· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-05-06 ·cited 9×
  The Crowleys appealed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees and costs under Florida's offer of judgment statute after their settlement offers to Sunny's Plants were rejected and the case proceeded to trial, resulting in a judgment exceeding their offers. The appellate court
• Connor v. Sw. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc.
  668 So. 2d 175· Fla.· 1995-12-21 ·cited 9×
  The Florida Supreme Court abrogates the common law doctrine of necessaries, which held spouses liable for medical and other necessary services provided to their spouse. The court determined that because coverture has been eliminated and spousal support duties are now reciprocal,
• Designs FOR Vision, Inc. v. Amedas, Inc.
  632 So. 2d 614· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-01-05 ·cited 9×
  Designs for Vision, Inc. (DVI) and Edward Brown appeal jury verdicts awarding damages to Amedas, Inc. for breach of employment contract and tortious interference. The appellate court affirms the jury's liability findings but reverses and remands regarding the damages structure an
• Kane v. Portwood
  573 So. 2d 980· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-01-25 ·cited 9×
  A 15-year-old passenger sued defendants for injuries from an automobile accident, but the jury applied the joint enterprise doctrine to impute the driver's negligence to her, resulting in zero recovery. The appellate court reversed, holding that the joint enterprise doctrine shou