Parol Evidence Rule

2,396 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Jorie Gracen v. The Bradford Exch. & Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
  698 F.2d 300· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-12 ·cited 11×
  A derivative work must be substantially different from the underlying copyrighted work to be copyrightable, and the artist's painting of Dorothy from "The Wizard of Oz" was not sufficiently original. However, the scope of an implied license for the counterclaim requires further f
• Landale Enters., Inc. v. Cranford Berry and Nell Berry
  676 F.2d 506· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 11×
  A specific contractual disclaimer of reliance on representations, agreed to by sophisticated parties in an arms-length transaction, effectively bars a subsequent fraud claim based on those representations.
• Frank Marshall and wife v. Billy Johnson and wife
  392 So. 2d 249· Fla.· 1980-10-16 ·cited 11×
  This case involves a dispute over the boundary line between two parcels of property sold by Hoer to Marshall and Johnson, concerning the division of shoreline frontage.
• Carlon, Inc. v. Southland Diversified Co.
  381 So. 2d 291· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-03-12 ·cited 11×
  Carlon, Inc. sued Southland Diversified Company for accelerated rental payments under a written equipment lease after the defendant abandoned use of fountain equipment after seven months. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that parol evidence of oral negotiati
• Quarterman v. City OF Jacksonville
  347 So. 2d 1036· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-02-03 ·cited 11×
  A sign painter injured by electrical lines sued multiple defendants after settling with some parties via a general release. The court addressed whether unnamed parties (Southern General Corporation and Travelers Insurance Company) could invoke a general release to bar the plainti
• Industries v. Panelfab Int'l Corp.
  529 F.2d 1203· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the agency agreement was ambiguous, allowing parole evidence, and that substantial evidence supported the jury's findings regarding breach of contract and impossibility of performance.
• Seaway Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp. & Bertram Yacht Sales of Fort Lauderdale, Inc.
  242 So. 2d 192· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-12-22 ·cited 11×
  Seaway Yacht Sales appealed a directed verdict dismissing its claims against Brunswick Corporation and Bertram Yacht Sales for breach of a boat dealership agreement, illegal restraint of trade, and tortious interference. The court affirmed the directed verdict, holding that the d
• Jonat Props., Inc. v. Roslyn S. Gateman
  226 So. 2d 703· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-09-16 ·cited 11×
  Two defendants were held liable for tortious interference with contractual relations when they extended a promissory note's maturity date without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, who had acquired rights to the debt through a divorce decree. The jury awarded compensatory
• Burry v. Nat'l Trailer Convoy, Inc.
  338 F.2d 422· 6th Cir.· 1964-11-25 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, not independent contractors, and that the contract attempting to circumvent the Act was void.
• Lottie A. Roberts v. Pfeiffer
  135 So. 2d 246· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-12-08 ·cited 11×
  A Florida appellate court affirmed a lower court decree reforming a deed to correct a misdescription of property caused by mutual mistake of the parties. The court held that equitable reformation was appropriate where the purchasers intended to buy and took possession of land bet
• Albrecht v. Ind. Harbor Belt R. Co.
  178 F.2d 577· 7th Cir.· 1949-12-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the action was properly dismissed because it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
• United States v. Pierotti
  154 F.2d 758· 9th Cir.· 1946-04-02 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a state court decree establishing the fact of death in a joint tenancy proceeding does not conclusively determine the character of the property for federal estate tax purposes, and parol evidence is admissible to show intent to hold property as community prope
• Luksich v. Misetich
  140 F.2d 812· 9th Cir.· 1944-01-26 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the shipping articles, supplemented by oral evidence of the agreement, determined the duration of the employment for calculating the seaman's share of the catch.
• Elvins v. Seestedt
  148 Fla. 408· Fla.· 1941-11-04 ·cited 11×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a resulting trust arose when a corporation advanced funds to purchase property that was titled in the corporation's secretary-treasurer's name and subsequently conveyed to a trustee. The court held that parol evidence is admissible to e
• Shoemaker v. Powers
  78 Fla. 20· Fla.· 1919-06-24 ·cited 11×
  This appeal concerns whether Margaret F. Powers validly conveyed land to L. Memminger, who immediately reconveyed it to Stephen Powers (Margaret's husband), or whether Margaret retained title and devised the land through her will to her three children including the appellants. Th
• Famiglio v. Famiglio
  279 So. 3d 736· Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-05-10 ·cited 10×
  The indefinite article "a" in the prenuptial agreement's provision measuring alimony by "the time a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage is filed" ordinarily refers to the first petition filed, not the petition that ultimately results in dissolution of marriage. When a contractua
• Toussaint v. Toussaint
  107 So. 3d 474· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-01-24 ·cited 10×
  In this military retirement benefits dispute, the Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's interpretation of a marital settlement agreement (MSA) provision governing division of the former husband's Air Force retirement pay. The court held that the MSA provision was amb
• MDS (Canada), Inc. v. Rad Source Techs., Inc.
  822 F. Supp. 2d 1263· S.D. Fla.· 2011-09-30 ·cited 10×
  The court found that the RS 3400 does not embody the patents licensed under the agreement, and thus Rad Source can market it, subject to a right of first negotiation. The non-compete provision expired by its own terms.
• Wheeler v. Wheeler, Erwin & Fountain, P.A.
  964 So. 2d 745· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-08-14 ·cited 10×
  Wheeler sought payment under a deferred compensation agreement after withdrawing from his accounting firm partnership. The trial court denied his claim based on parol evidence suggesting the obligation to pay was conditioned on the firm remaining in business, but the appellate co
• Calderon v. J.B. Nurseries, Inc.
  933 So. 2d 553· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-02-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a workers' compensation settlement agreement was not sufficiently specific and mutually agreeable as to the essential element of executing a release, thus it was not binding.
• First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla. v. Hall
  123 F.3d 1374· 11th Cir.· 1997-09-23 ·cited 10×
  First Union National Bank sought to enforce a promissory note against M. Lewis Hall, who claimed that Southeast Bank had agreed to limit the bank's remedies upon default. The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine barred Hall's defense because he failed to present evidence t
• AVIS Rent A CAR Sys., Inc. v. Monroe Cnty.
  660 So. 2d 413· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-09-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the term "non-exclusive" in an integrated concession agreement, which is otherwise silent on the number of concessions, is unambiguous and does not limit the grantor's right to grant further concessions.
• Schwartz v. Gold Coast Graphics
  623 So. 2d 819· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-09-01 ·cited 10×
  An agent contracting for a disclosed principal is not personally liable on the contract when the contract clearly states only the principal's credit is involved.
• ITT Corp. v. LTX Corp.
  926 F.2d 1258· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the settlement agreement's 'acceptance test criteria' unambiguously required only a continuity test, not a durability test, and that implied warranties under the UCC were excluded by the parties' course of dealing.
• Network Publ'g Corp. & Providence Journal Co. v. Shapiro
  895 F.2d 97· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that 'liabilities' in the indemnification provision includes sums owed to third parties, regardless of whether they were paid before or after closing, and that the contract language did not limit recovery to liabilities paid by the purchaser.
• King v. Est. OF Cecil E. King, Sr.
  554 So. 2d 600· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-12-20 ·cited 10×
  A statutory presumption that joint bank accounts pass by survivorship to the surviving account holder may be rebutted by clear and convincing proof of a contrary intent, and parol evidence is admissible under Florida Statutes section 658.56 to establish such contrary intent when
• DSA Grp., Inc. v. Gonzalez
  555 So. 2d 1234· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-10-20 ·cited 10×
  DSA Group sued Lawrence Gonzalez for breach of a contract for engineering and architectural services. Gonzalez signed the contract as purported president of a nonexistent limited partnership, and the trial court found he was not personally liable because the parties intended to c
• Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Signalmen
  882 F.2d 778· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a dispute over whether unions could engage in a sympathy strike was a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending arbitration.
• Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. S. Cal. Edison Co.
  880 F.2d 104· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the contract's provisions regarding major medical benefits were ambiguous, and the employer's interpretation was not entitled to deference, thus precluding summary judgment.
• George E. McGOWAN and wife Maxine McGowan v. Cooper Indus., Inc.
  863 F.2d 1266· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts does not impose extra-contractual duties on a party beyond the scope of its contract, and excluded testimony improperly offering legal conclusions or opinions on ultimate issues.
• Godchaux v. Conveying Techniques, Inc.
  846 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that withdrawal liability under ERISA does not arise until an employer actually withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan, not when the plan develops an unfunded vested liability. The court also held that a warranty to prepare financial statements according to GA
• Vicente L. Morta v. Korea Ins. Corp.
  840 F.2d 1452· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 10×
  The court should affirm the lower court's decision because it was based on a tenable theory and was not manifestly erroneous, particularly in light of the interpretation of Guam Civil Code § 1542.
• Marine Bank v. The Meat Counter, Inc.
  826 F.2d 1577· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the defendant justifiably relied on a misrepresentation, thus precluding summary judgment.
• Alimenta (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc.
  803 F.2d 1160· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Alimenta's first notice of appeal was valid because Anheuser's motion regarding costs did not qualify as a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend judgment, and that the exclusion of expert testimony was proper. The court also affirmed the district court's rulings on
• Bartel Dental Books Co., Inc. v. Schultz
  786 F.2d 486· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Bartel's claims were frivolous due to a prior release, and Mapleton's claims were barred by issue and claim preclusion, affirming the grant of summary judgment and imposition of sanctions.
• Robert C. ROY Agency, Inc. v. Sun First Nat'l Bank of Palm Beach
  468 So. 2d 399· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-04-24 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed a judgment in a replevin action where a bank retained possession of a coin collection pledged as security for multiple loans, including preexisting obligations. The court upheld the validity and enforceability of a 'dragnet clause' that secured all liabilities
• Bellefonte RE Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co.
  757 F.2d 523· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 10×
  Settlement agreements, even if procured by fraud, bar claims for rescission based on that fraud, and covenants not to sue do not entitle a party to damages for good faith litigation testing the covenant's scope.
• The Kan. Power & Light Co. v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  740 F.2d 780· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a contract for coal transportation rates could have been formed between KPL and BN, and that such a contract was not illegal per se under the statutory framework existing in 1972, especially considering the Staggers Rail Act of 1980.
• Long Island Airports Limousine Serv. Corp. v. Playboy-Elsinore Assocs.
  739 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the contract language regarding termination was not wholly unambiguous, and thus summary judgment was inappropriate.
• Interox Am. v. PPG Indus., Inc.
  736 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding breach of contract and trade secret claims.
• Ketchian v. F.P. Concannon and Helena Concannon
  435 So. 2d 394· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-07-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding a condition precedent to the promissory note's effectiveness, as such evidence does not violate the parol evidence rule.
• Prop. TAX Research Co. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
  708 F.2d 1333· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Christianson v. Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co.
  681 F.2d 577· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a claim against an employer under § 301 of the LMRA, where the applicability of the collective bargaining agreement to the employee depends on oral employment contracts, is subject to the state's three-year statute of limitations for oral contracts.
• W. Contracting Corp. v. The DOW Chem. Co.
  664 F.2d 1097· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the subcontract unambiguously required Dow to use its best efforts regarding fragmentation, and that Dow substantially complied with this obligation, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.
• Long Island Tr. Co. v. Dicker
  659 F.2d 641· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Texas saving statute applies to actions dismissed for want of jurisdiction in a sister state's court, tolling the statute of limitations. It also held that the defense of fraudulent inducement based on oral misrepresentations is unavailable for a guaranty
• CCMS Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Dooley-Maloof, Inc.
  645 F.2d 33· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict on breach of contract and fiduciary duties, and that the trial court properly awarded damages, attorneys' fees, and an injunction.
• Thomas v. Sports CAR Club OF Am., Inc.
  386 So. 2d 272· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-05-21 ·cited 10×
  A widow appealed the dismissal of her wrongful death claim against a raceway and racing organization, arguing that a pre-race liability release signed by her deceased husband was ambiguous or contrary to public policy. The Florida appellate court affirmed the directed verdict, ho
• Irv Schwartz v. Disneyland Vista Records
  383 So. 2d 1117· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-05-14 ·cited 10×
  Irv Schwartz signed six promissory notes individually for Disneyland Vista Records to secure a debt owed by his corporation, American Music Industries, Inc. The court held that under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code, because the notes bore only Schwartz's individual signature wi
• Dolores v. Roberts
  582 F.2d 496· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a claim for money had and received could be based on an ambiguous deed exception, and that a substantial injustice would result if this claim were not considered.
• Centronics Fin. Corp. v. EL Conquistador Hotel Corp.
  573 F.2d 779· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper because a claim of fraud in the inducement, even if it contradicts a written contract, can be a valid defense under New York law and raises factual issues for trial.