Prejudgment Attachment

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

• Johnson v. Am. Credit Co. OF Ga.
  581 F.2d 526· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-06 ·cited 71×
  The Georgia prejudgment attachment scheme is facially unconstitutional because it lacks the required judicial scrutiny for the issuance of attachment writs, violating the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• Lowell Buller v. Buechler
  706 F.2d 844· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-05 ·cited 66×
  The court held that private individuals who utilize state garnishment procedures, even if later found unconstitutional, can be considered state actors for section 1983 purposes if they act jointly with state officials, and may assert a qualified immunity defense.
• Konover Realty Assocs., Ltd. v. Mladen
  511 So. 2d 705· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-08-18 ·cited 59×
  In a contract dispute over a hotel purchase, the trial court ordered sellers to deposit $500,000 (the buyer's deposit) into the court registry pending resolution of the case. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida law does not permit courts to order deposit of funds i
• Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin
  763 F.2d 1250· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 59×
  The court held that Section 1983 claims should be characterized as personal injury actions akin to trespass, thus borrowing Alabama's six-year statute of limitations.
• Usaco Coal Co. v. Carbomin Energy, Inc.
  689 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 59×
  The court held that a district court has the power to issue a preliminary injunction to preserve assets for potential restitution based on a breach of fiduciary duty, even if the defendants argue state law remedies are adequate.
• Reebok Int'l v. Marnatech Enters., Inc.
  970 F.2d 552· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 57×
  The court held that in Lanham Act cases, a district court can in some instances issue a freeze of some assets for some period of time.
• Jonnet v. Dollar Sav. Bank of the City of N.Y.
  530 F.2d 1123· 3d Cir.· 1976-01-27 ·cited 44×
  The court held that Pennsylvania's foreign attachment procedures violate procedural due process by allowing quasi-in-rem jurisdiction over debts owed to a foreign corporation without sufficient minimum contacts.
• Rosen v. Cascade Int'l, Inc.
  21 F.3d 1520· 11th Cir.· 1994-04-11 ·cited 38×
  Shareholders of Cascade International brought a class action against Dr. Lawrence Moses and others for securities fraud arising from allegedly fraudulent financial statements and unauthorized stock issuances that inflated the company's stock price. The district court granted a pr
• In re Feit & Drexler, Inc. v. Drexler
  760 F.2d 406· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 38×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court had the statutory authority to issue a mandatory turnover order for property located outside its territorial jurisdiction, and that the order was appealable as an interlocutory injunction. The court affirmed the district court's o
• Bowers v. Conn. Nat'l Bank
  847 F.2d 1019· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the district court's order remanding the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings was not a final decision.
• Cobb v. Ga. Power Co.
  757 F.2d 1248· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 27×
  A private party's mere use of state court process to obtain a court order, even if the order is later vacated, does not constitute action 'under color of law' for purposes of a § 1983 claim, absent allegations of conspiracy or other 'something more' indicating state complicity.
• Cerna v. Swiss Bank Corp. (Overseas), S.A.
  503 So. 2d 1297· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-02-10 ·cited 26×
  Prejudgment attachment is permissible for assets fraudulently transferred or equitably owned by the debtor, even if titled in another's name, but garnishment of debts owed to that other person requires a prior judgment against the debtor.
• Mary Dee's, Inc. v. Tartamella
  492 So. 2d 815· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-08-13 ·cited 25×
  In this appeal from a non-final order, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, holding that plaintiffs seeking to collect on a promissory note had an adequate remedy at law through money judgment and pr
• Dahlberg v. Becker
  748 F.2d 85· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-09 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the private parties' alleged misuse of state law was not attributable to the state, and thus there was no 'state action' or 'state actor'.
• Duncan v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck
  844 F.2d 1261· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 24×
  Private parties acting under color of state law are not entitled to good faith immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but may assert a good faith defense.
• ST. Lawrence Co., N.V. v. Alkow Realty, Inc.
  453 So. 2d 514· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-08-01 ·cited 24×
  A temporary mandatory injunction freezing $250,000 in sale proceeds to secure a brokerage commission claim was reversed because an action for money damages on an oral contract does not qualify for equitable relief merely because collectibility is uncertain.
• Acquafredda v. Messina
  408 So. 2d 828· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-01-20 ·cited 24×
  Appellants challenge a temporary restraining order that prevented them from disposing of business assets during a lawsuit on a promissory note. The court reversed, holding that an injunction cannot issue in an action at law for debt when adequate legal remedies such as attachment
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Dixon
  835 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-28 ·cited 22×
  A preliminary injunction freezing assets is permissible to secure equitable remedies like restitution, especially when the public interest is involved and the assets are alleged ill-gotten gains.
• Henry v. First Nat'l Bank OF Clarksdale
  444 F.2d 1300· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 21×
• FMC Corp. v. Varonos
  892 F.2d 1308· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Varonos's communications to FMC in Illinois, containing misrepresentations in furtherance of her fraudulent scheme, subjected her to personal jurisdiction under the Illinois long-arm statute and due process. The court also held that the district court abused i
• Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp.
  670 F.2d 1316· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-25 ·cited 20×
  The filing of a lis pendens under the New Jersey statute does not constitute a "taking" of property without due process of law, as it does not deprive the owner of possession or use and merely provides notice of an existing claim.
• Duncan v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck
  752 F.2d 1135· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that res judicata does not bar a federal § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of state procedures, and that pursuing state judicial remedies can constitute action under color of state law.
• Schiffahartsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. A. Bottacchi S.A. DE Navegacion
  773 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the maritime attachment procedures under Rule B(1) are derived from the court's inherent admiralty powers, not exclusively from the rule itself, thus avoiding a constitutional challenge to the rule.
• Davis OIL Co. v. Mills
  873 F.2d 774· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a foreclosing mortgagee acting under Louisiana's foreclosure procedures, which allow for the extinguishment of subordinate interests without actual notice to the holder of that interest, can be considered a state actor for Due Process Clause purposes, and that
• Traughber v. Beauchane
  760 F.2d 673· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-22 ·cited 16×
  Federal courts should not abstain from hearing a § 1983 claim challenging state attachment procedures when state remedies are inadequate or uncertain.
• Richard and Mary Guzman v. W. State Bank OF Devils Lake
  516 F.2d 125· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-11 ·cited 16×
  The North Dakota prejudgment attachment statute is unconstitutional as applied because it lacks sufficient procedural safeguards to satisfy due process, particularly regarding the necessity for summary seizure and judicial supervision.
• Atwood Turnkey Drilling, Inc. v. Petroleo Brasileiro, S.A.
  875 F.2d 1174· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a preliminary injunction and that the injunction was properly granted. Petrobras is not immune from suit due to a waiver of sovereign immunity in the contract.
• Gen. Elec. Co. & Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Chuly Int'l, LLC
  118 So. 3d 325· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-08-07 ·cited 13×
  GE appealed the denial of its motion for a prejudgment writ of attachment against Chuly International's property, claiming the property was acquired through a fraudulent transfer by de Cespedes (who guaranteed GE's lease). The court reversed, holding that GE presented sufficient
• Libra Bank Ltd. v. Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, S.A.
  676 F.2d 47· 2d Cir.· 1982-04-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a broad waiver of immunity from suit in a loan agreement and promissory notes constitutes an "explicit" waiver of immunity from prejudgment attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
• Pinsky v. Duncan
  898 F.2d 852· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-09 ·cited 12×
  Connecticut's statute authorizing prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice, opportunity for a hearing, or requiring a bond, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Giles M. Lugar v. Edmondson OIL Co., Inc.
  639 F.2d 1058· 4th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 12×
• Estudios v. Swiss Bank Corp. (Overseas) S.A.
  507 So. 2d 1119· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-02-24 ·cited 11×
  EPICA, a Costa Rican corporation, appeals a trial court's order granting a prejudgment writ of attachment of its property to secure a debt owed by Raul Garcia Granados to Swiss Bank Corporation. The court upheld the attachment based on alter ego liability, finding that Granados c
• Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin
  822 F.2d 998· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The judge issuing a writ of attachment must have discretion to inquire into the veracity of the creditor's allegations, not just facial sufficiency, to satisfy constitutional due process requirements.
• Hordis Bros., Inc. v. Sentinel Holdings, Inc.
  562 So. 2d 715· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-04-24 ·cited 8×
  Hordis Brothers, Inc., a Pennsylvania-incorporated glass manufacturer with operations in Florida, challenged a prejudgment writ of attachment issued by the trial court based on Sentinel Holdings' claim for unpaid goods. The appellate court quashed the writ, finding that the nonre
• Solange Landau v. Vallen
  895 F.2d 888· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 8×
  Alleged victims of a defendant's criminal conduct may seek to attach bail funds in a related civil proceeding, as this does not necessarily undermine the purposes of bail and aligns with New York's attachment laws.
• NEW England Merchs. Nat'l Bank v. Iran Power Generation & Transmission Co.
  646 F.2d 779· 2d Cir.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it should not rule on the validity of the settlement agreement and related executive orders, remanding the case to the district court for further development.
• Inter-Regional Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Cyrus Hashemi
  562 F.2d 152· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an order requiring a defendant to bring securities into the state for attachment, in addition to surrendering them, is an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• de Rodriguez v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela
  576 So. 2d 870· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-03-19 ·cited 7×
  The court held that an injunction under the RICO Act cannot be issued against an innocent party, but a lis pendens and prejudgment attachment were properly granted.
• Frio Ice v. SunFruit
  724 F. Supp. 1373· S.D. Fla.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) does not grant private parties jurisdiction to seek injunctive relief, and that a prior injunction requiring the establishment of a trust bank account was improper. The court also found that while individuals
• Caribbean Trading & Fid. Corp. v. Nigerian Nat'l Petroleum Corp.
  948 F.2d 111· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the invocation of FSIA immunity was untimely, even if the order compelling security was an FSIA attachment.
• Barnes v. Sam R. Lehman, M.D.
  861 F.2d 1383· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the termination of workers' compensation benefits by a private insurer, even if based on a doctor's opinion and governed by state statutes, does not constitute state action for purposes of a § 1983 claim unless there is a sufficiently close nexus between the s
• S & S Mach. Co. v. Masinexportimport
  706 F.2d 411· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 6×
  Entities qualifying as agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign state under FSIA are immune from prejudgment attachment unless immunity is explicitly waived, and a general waiver of 'other liability' in a trade agreement does not constitute an explicit waiver of prejudgment att
• Tibor Horvath v. Emerico Letay
  343 F.2d 463· 2d Cir.· 1965-03-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to compel examination of a non-party in aid of a prejudgment attachment, where no jurisdictional purpose remains, is not a final decision and thus not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• O'Connell Mach. Co., Inc. v. M.V. "Americana" and Italia Di Navigazione
  734 F.2d 115· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the M/V Americana, owned by an instrumentality of the Republic of Italy, is immune from arrest under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), and that the FSIA does not violate the Constitution's grant of admiralty jurisdiction.
• ITC Ent. v. Nelson Film P'rs & Frank Menke
  714 F.2d 217· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant's amenability to service of process within New York does not preclude attachment against a nondomiciliary residing without the state, as attachment serves both jurisdictional and security purposes. The court further held that the defendant's sporad
• James McMERTY in the matter of Endeco, Inc. v. Herzog
  702 F.2d 127· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in releasing escrowed funds to the bankruptcy trustee, as the property was purchased with estate funds and the defendant's due process claim was not preserved.
• 50 State Sec. Serv., Inc. v. Murray
  973 So. 2d 533· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-12-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a party depositing funds into the court registry as security for contractual obligations is entitled to the return of those funds once the underlying claims are dismissed and the funds are not the subject of any specific claim or lien.
• Ebsco Indus., Inc. v. Lilly
  840 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 2×
  A preliminary injunction may be granted to preserve assets if the legal remedy of attachment under Rule 64 is demonstrably inadequate, even if attachment is generally available.
• Perpetual Am. Bank v. Terrestrial Sys., Inc.
  811 F.2d 504· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an order granting a prejudgment writ of attachment is not an appealable final order under the collateral order doctrine.
• Anthony v. Texaco, Inc.
  803 F.2d 593· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction to freeze funds under ERISA, as it was a valid exercise of equitable jurisdiction and not subject to strict prejudgment attachment standards.