Judicial Admission

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

• Staphan L. Koserkoff v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  427 F.2d 1049· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's voluntary act of jumping from the crane, not the railroad's alleged negligence, was the proximate cause of his injuries.
• Bank OF Leipsic Co. v. United States
  288 F.2d 467· 6th Cir.· 1961-04-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bank was not entitled to tax exemption for 1955 because depositors had been paid in full prior to the tax assessment and collection, and the bank had sufficient assets to cover the tax without impairing depositor claims.
• Garey v. Anco Mfg. & Supply Co. & Gene Franklin Paddock
  221 F.2d 683· 8th Cir.· 1955-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing the plaintiff's requested jury instruction because there was no evidence to support the theory that the defendant's alleged headlight negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.
• Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Carter
  196 F.2d 992· 10th Cir.· 1952-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs had an insurable interest in the property and their proof of loss was not fraudulent, thus allowing recovery on the fire insurance policy.
• Myers v. US Bank Nat'l Ass'n
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-02
  The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract, constructive fraud, or FDCPA violations due to a lack of specific factual allegations and untimeliness.
• Johnson Sewer & Drain Contractors v. Gambardella
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-06-24
  The Superior Court granted summary judgment in part for the plaintiff on breach of contract claims, finding that the defendant was liable. The court dismissed the conversion claim. The parties were ordered to brief the issue of damages.
• Johnson Sewer & Drain Contractors v. Gambardella
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-06-24
  The Superior Court granted summary judgment in part for the plaintiff on breach of contract claims, finding the defendant liable. The court dismissed the conversion claim, ruling it arose solely from the contract. The parties were ordered to brief the issue of damages.
• NEW Castle Cnty. v. Hersha Hospitality Mgmt., L.P.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-04-25
  The Court denied the County's motion to dismiss the counterclaim, finding that Hersha sufficiently alleged a reasonably conceivable claim that the County breached the Property Management Agreement (PMA) by wrongfully terminating it. The Court also denied the County's motion to st
• Eran Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eran Indus. Ltd.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-02
  The court granted in part and denied in part various motions in limine, precluding certain evidence and arguments from trial, particularly concerning damages, undisclosed intellectual property, and partnership theories.
• Centrella v. Avantor, Inc.
  Del. Ch.· 2024-07-01
  The Delaware Court of Chancery held that a former employee of a subsidiary is entitled to mandatory advancement under the parent company's bylaws. The court found that the subsidiary employed the plaintiff based on the weight of evidence, including payroll, control over job perfo
• Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Kavoll
  379 So. 3d 1174· Fla. 4th DCA· 2024-01-17
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's involuntary dismissal of a foreclosure case. The court held that the bank had established a prima facie case of substantial compliance with the default notice requirement, even though the notice was sent to the property address instead
• Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Kavoll
  379 So. 3d 1174· Fla. 4th DCA· 2024-01-17
  A mortgagee establishes a prima facie case of substantial compliance with a default letter condition precedent by mailing the letter to a valid address for the defendant, even if the mortgage requires mailing to a different address.
• Tedder v. Ethicon Inc
  N.D. Fla.· 2022-03-31
  The court held that an expert's opinions on product warnings were inadmissible due to insufficient qualifications, but opinions on safer alternative procedures and products were admissible for risk-utility analysis.
• Roberts v. Hatcher
  N.D. Fla.· 2021-05-21
  The court held that the plaintiff's judicial admission, combined with supporting medical bills and future cost estimates, sufficiently established the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, thus denying the motion to remand.
• Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Gulfstream Unsinkable Boats, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-29
  The court held that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's findings on priority and likelihood of confusion have preclusive effect, entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment on affirmative defenses that challenge these findings, but not on defenses like estoppel, acquiescence,
• Bejerano v. Flex Fla. Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-07-20
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the defendant individual was an employer under the FLSA based on judicial admissions.
• United States v. Cornwell
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-02-11
  The United States brought this action under 26 U.S.C. § 7402 to reduce federal tax liabilities and enforce tax liens against real property in Orlando, Florida held by Joseph Cornwell's alter ego, limited liability company JOMICO, LLC. The court entered default judgment against Co
• Aligned Bayshore Holdings, LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-02-05
  The court held that the defendant insurer was bound by its judicial admission in its pleadings that the applicable Statement of Values was included in the plaintiff's commercial insurance application.
• Aligned Bayshore Holdings, LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-09-12
  The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, vacating its prior ruling on the applicable statement of values and the final judgment for the Defendant.
• Est. of Malkin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  125 La. 1046· S.D. Fla.· 2019-03-29
  The court held that the life insurance policy was a STOLI policy void under Delaware law, and the Estate is entitled to recover the death benefit under Delaware's insurable interest statute.
• Ibio, Inc. v. Fraunhofer USA, Inc.
  Del. Ch.· 2016-07-29
  The Court held that under the relevant agreements, iBio is entitled to ownership rights and a transfer of all technology developed by Fraunhofer through December 31, 2014. This includes broad intellectual property rights, not limited to specific patents or patent applications, an
• Larue v. C.A. N15A-07-003 PRW Evraz Claymont Steel
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2016-02-10
  The Industrial Accident Board's decision revising the attorney's fees award is affirmed. The employee is precluded from arguing the Board failed to properly analyze the Cox factors due to prior judicial admissions. Even if not precluded, the Board properly considered the Cox fact
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Eileen Masterson-Carr v. C.A. No. N12C-11-107 MJB Anesthesia Servs., P.A.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2015-08-28
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish her claims for constructive discharge, tortious interference with contract, and defamation. The court found that the plaintiff's constructive discharge claim was not barred by
• In & for Kent Cnty. Bon Ayre Land LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2015-02-26
  The Delaware Superior Court affirmed the arbitrator's denial of the rent increase. The court held that the appellant failed to comply with the procedural disclosure requirements of the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act, specifically the mandate to disclos
• Company v. Est. of David L. Myers & Arlene J. Myers
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2014-04-16
  The court denied the defendants' motion to strike, finding that the argument that Arlene Myers was not a party to the contract was waived as it was not raised in the initial responsive pleading. Furthermore, even on the merits, the court found that the presence of her signature o
• Merritt
  Del.· 2008-09-04
  The Superior Court's judgment affirming the Industrial Accident Board's decision to terminate disability benefits is reversed. The Board abused its discretion by disregarding the employer's judicial admission that the claimant's partial disability was 'on-going,' and by unilatera
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
  Del. C.P.· 2007-06-01
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish proximate cause for the fire, which was essential for their negligence claim. Even if the defendants were found negligent per se for violating a city ordinance regarding vacant property security, the plaintiffs did not prove
• In & for Kent Cnty. Gregory N. Villabona, M.D.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2004-04-28
  The Court affirmed the Board of Medical Practice's decision, finding that the doctor's guilty plea to sexual offenses against minors, even though it resulted in probation before judgment and not a formal conviction, constituted unprofessional conduct likely to harm the public. Th
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. John G. Ballenger
  Del. Ch.· 2002-04-24
  The court denied all dispositive motions. It held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment for the plaintiffs on their earnout claims, and that Applied Digital had waived its right to arbitration due to its prior litigation conduct and the commercial imprac
• In re Corland Corp. v. Duke Salisbury
  967 F.2d 1069· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-12
  Payments made by a guarantor directly to a creditor are not property of the estate and cannot be avoided by the trustee under § 549, and a guarantor may offset such payments against a debt owed to the debtor.
• ALL Line, Inc. v. Rabar Corp.
  919 F.2d 475· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-04
  The court held that damages for breach of a terminable-at-will contract are limited to pre-termination losses, and future lost profits are not recoverable. Interest on past-due invoices was properly awarded.
• In re Stolkin v. March
  471 F.2d 1331· 7th Cir.· 1973-01-16
  The court held that the referee did not abuse his discretion in denying the petition for reconsideration because the alleged oral modification lacked adequate consideration and Stolkin did not fully perform his obligations under it.
• Wood Leonard Sholly et ux. v. Annan
  450 F.2d 74· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-11
  A party's testimony, even if uncontradicted by other witnesses, is not binding if it is demonstrably mistaken and concerns a peripheral fact not central to liability.
• Niedernhofer v. United States
  426 F.2d 1403· Ct. Cl.· 1970-06-12
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because his first request for a disability retirement board decision was within six years of filing his petition.
• McGEE v. O & M Boat Co., Inc.
  412 F.2d 75· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-09
  The court held that the district judge did not err in submitting the cause of death to the jury, nor were the jury instructions erroneous.
• McALLISTER v. Catlett
  374 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1967-03-24
  The court held that the medical records were admissible as business records and that the defendant's testimony did not preclude the introduction of evidence contradicting his earlier statements regarding the plaintiff's location.
• Fairbanks v. Yellow CAB Co.
  346 F.2d 258· 7th Cir.· 1965-05-18
  The court affirmed both judgments, finding no merit in the contentions of Yellow Cab or the plaintiff regarding liability or damages.
• Rorschach v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  341 F.2d 567· 10th Cir.· 1965-02-15
  The court held that the Tax Court correctly dismissed the petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because he was not the party assessed by the Commissioner.
• Coral v. Gavino Gonse
  330 F.2d 997· 4th Cir.· 1964-04-15
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to change his claimed state of residency after evidence strongly indicated the defendant resided in the same state, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction.
• Hunter v. Fla. Bd. OF Pharmacy
  162 So. 2d 524· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-03-10
  Charles Hunter, a licensed pharmacist, was disciplined by the Florida Board of Pharmacy for dispensing drugs without prescriptions and misbranding drugs in violation of state food, drug, and cosmetic law. Hunter challenged the Board's jurisdiction to hear violations of that law,
• THE Gray Line Co. v. THE Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  280 F.2d 294· 9th Cir.· 1960-06-30
  The court held that the district court's award of damages was affirmed, but the denial of anticipatory indemnification was reversed and remanded for consideration of declaratory relief.