Prejudgment Interest

2,315 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 3 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co.
  474 So. 2d 212· Fla.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 656×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed a district court's decision that reversed an award of prejudgment interest, holding that the award was proper despite comparative negligence affecting the final damage amount.
• Huddleston v. Herman & MacLEAN
  640 F.2d 534· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 202×
  A cause of action lies under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 even if the conduct is also actionable under express liability provisions of securities laws. The trial court erred by failing to submit issues of reliance and causation to the jury.
• United AIR Lines, Inc. v. Wiener
  335 F.2d 379· 9th Cir.· 1964-06-24 ·cited 185×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied California law regarding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and that there was sufficient evidence to support findings of negligence against both United and the government.
• Buchanan v. Bowman
  820 F.2d 359· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 171×
  The court affirmed the district court's imposition of sanctions, striking the appellant's answer and entering a default judgment, and upheld the damages award.
• Noritake Co., Inc. v. M/V Hellenic Champion
  627 F.2d 724· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-09 ·cited 165×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the 'act of God' defense applicable to most of the cargo damage, but erred in failing to award prejudgment interest on the damages awarded.
• Hunter v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.
  797 F.2d 1417· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 160×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of employment discrimination based on racial harassment and retaliatory discharge, and that the damage awards were not excessive.
• Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC
  211 F. Supp. 2d 1345· M.D. Fla.· 2002-04-16 ·cited 154×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint sufficiently stated claims for negligence and violation of nursing home residents' rights, and that the defendant's motions to dismiss and strike were denied.
• Rolf v. Blyth
  570 F.2d 38· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-03 ·cited 140×
  The court held that a registered representative and his employer are not liable under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 for losses suffered by a customer due to an independent investment advisor's fraud, as the representative lacked the requisite scienter.
• Heiar v. Crawford Cnty.
  746 F.2d 1190· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 135×
  The dissenting judge believes the court should have applied the same standard of proof to state and local governments as is applied to the federal government under the ADEA.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster Near NEW Orleans v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  821 F.2d 1147· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 126×
  The concurrence argues that the Erie analysis should give greater weight to state interests and less to federal forum interests in self-administration. It contends that the "twin aims" of Erie, as articulated in Hanna v. Plumer, are primarily to discourage forum-shopping and prev
• de Arroyo v. Sindicato de Trabajadores Packinghouse, AFL-CIO
  425 F.2d 281· 1st Cir.· 1970-04-17 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the Union's arbitrary and perfunctory handling of grievances constituted a breach of its duty of fair representation, barring the employer's exhaustion defense, but the suit against the Union was barred by the statute of limitations. Reinstatement is a permiss
• Castle v. Sangamo Weston, Inc.
  837 F.2d 1550· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 118×
  The court held that there was sufficient substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts for the appellants, making the grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict inappropriate, and that the district court's conditional rulings on damages and benefits were advisory.
• Gibson v. Mohawk Rubber Co.
  695 F.2d 1093· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-15 ·cited 110×
  The court held that the district court erred in its jury instructions regarding damages and in its equitable findings, necessitating a new trial on both legal and equitable relief.
• Segar v. Smith
  738 F.2d 1249· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-22 ·cited 105×
  In a pattern and practice disparate treatment case, the defendant's rebuttal must be sufficient to convince the trier of fact that the plaintiffs have not carried their ultimate burden; otherwise, the plaintiffs will prevail without further evidence.
• Furtado v. Bishop
  604 F.2d 80· 1st Cir.· 1979-07-26 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the admission of an attorney's affidavit under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) was proper, despite issues with pretrial notice and the judge's reasoning, because sufficient indicia of trustworthiness existed and the defendants were not prejudiced.
• Dependahl v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
  653 F.2d 1208· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 104×
  The court held that ERISA preempts state law claims for tortious interference with employee benefit plans, and punitive damages are not recoverable under ERISA in this context. Discovery sanctions were affirmed, but punitive damages and prejudgment interest awards were reversed.
• Huddell v. Levin
  537 F.2d 726· 3d Cir.· 1976-05-05 ·cited 93×
  The concurring judge believes the burden of apportioning damages should shift to the defendants when a plaintiff cannot reasonably do so, especially in cases involving concurrent tortfeasors and enhanced injuries from a defective product.
• Burgess v. Premier Corp.
  727 F.2d 826· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 91×
  The court held that summary judgment and directed verdicts were properly denied on statute of limitations and release issues, but should have been granted for defendants Schrock and Darby on federal and state securities claims due to insufficient evidence of scienter or control.
• Cent. Soya Co., Inc. v. GEO. A. Hormel & Co.
  723 F.2d 1573· Fed. Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 91×
  The court held that equivocal advice from counsel, which suggested a plausible argument against infringement rather than a clear assurance of legality, does not demonstrate good faith and therefore does not negate a finding of willful infringement.
• Moore-McCORMACK Lines, Inc. v. Richardson
  295 F.2d 583· 2d Cir.· 1961-10-25 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the hourly rate for pain and suffering was excessive and reduced it, modified certain other awards, and remanded for further findings on future care and earnings. It also remanded for the allowance of pre-judgment interest on pecuniary loss claims.
• King Instrument Corp. v. Otari Corp.
  767 F.2d 853· Fed. Cir.· 1985-06-26 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the '358 patent was invalid as 'on sale' and affirmed the validity and infringement of the '153 patent, but remanded for recalculation of spare parts damages.
• Lubbock Feed Lots, Inc. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.
  630 F.2d 250· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-10 ·cited 87×
  The court held that feedlot operators, acting as agents with an interest in the contract and as party promisees, are the real parties in interest under Texas law and thus have standing to sue the packer for unpaid cattle purchases.
• Self v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
  832 F.2d 1540· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-01 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the district court erred in limiting the plaintiff's recovery based on a settlement with another tortfeasor, and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover full damages less the amount already paid in settlement. The court also remanded for specific findings on
• Williamson v. Handy Button Mach. Co.
  817 F.2d 1290· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the jury's verdict on factual issues governs in a joint trial of legal and equitable claims, and that prejudgment interest on back pay is a necessary element of full compensation under § 1981.
• Kolb v. Goldring, Inc.
  694 F.2d 869· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-02 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the jury's compensatory damages award was excessive and recalculated it, ordering a remittitur or a new trial on damages. It also affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest.
• Lodges 743 & 1746, Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. United Aircraft Corp.
  534 F.2d 422· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-09 ·cited 84×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings that the Company did not breach the strike settlement agreements by depressing work complements, as the evidence showed legitimate business justifications for reduced staffing and the agreements did not mandate restoration of pre-s
• Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.
  717 F.2d 1380· Fed. Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 82×
  The court held that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded on the punitive portion of damages, but affirmed the district court's findings on patent validity, infringement, willful infringement, and the amount of damages.
• Warner v. Warner
  692 So. 2d 266· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-04-25 ·cited 81×
  In this divorce appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed multiple issues arising from a dissolution judgment, including attorney's fees, income imputation, asset distribution, medical expenses, child support arrearages, and interest. The court affirmed the trial court
• Bergen Brunswig Corp. & Health Application Sys., Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  415 So. 2d 765· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-05-21 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the denial of prejudgment interest was error because the jury verdict fixed the damages as of a prior date, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's order.
• Kelly v. Am. Standard, Inc.
  640 F.2d 974· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the 'knowing and voluntary' standard applies to ADEA liquidated damages, the good faith defense is inapplicable, prejudgment interest is proper, and emotional distress damages are recoverable under state law. The jury instructions were adequate.
• White v. Abrams
  495 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-15 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a defendant violated federal securities laws by making a material misrepresentation, even if the defendant did not know the statement was false, as this imposed absolute liability.
• State v. Fam. Bank OF Hallandale
  623 So. 2d 474· Fla.· 1993-07-01 ·cited 79×
  The Florida Supreme Court holds that state treasury warrants are not negotiable instruments under the Uniform Commercial Code despite their formal characteristics, and that a bank holding such a warrant is not a holder in due course entitled to payment free of the state's defense
• Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co. & Leybold-Heraeus GmbH
  758 F.2d 613· Fed. Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 79×
  The court affirmed the denial of judgment n.o.v. and new trial, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict on patent validity, infringement, and damages, and that the 'on sale' bar and inventorship issues were properly submitted to the jury.
• Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Nicolet Instrument Corp.
  739 F.2d 604· Fed. Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the jury's findings of patent validity and infringement were supported by substantial evidence, but vacated the denial of prejudgment interest, remanding for further consideration.
• Wagenmann v. Adams
  829 F.2d 196· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff were without probable cause, and that the jury's verdicts on false arrest and false imprisonment were supported by the evidence.
• Danis Indus. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc.
  645 So. 2d 420· Fla.· 1994-11-17 ·cited 77×
  The prevailing party test from Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises does not apply to attorney's fees awarded under Sections 627.428 and 627.756, Florida Statutes, because these statutes provide fees only to the insured or beneficiary, not reciprocally.
• O'Donnell v. Ga. Osteopathic Hosp., Inc.
  748 F.2d 1543· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding age-based comments was not an abuse of discretion, but reversed and remanded awards of backpay and frontpay due to the district court's failure to properly consider the issue of reinstatement. The court also vacated the awa
• Marcel Verbraeken v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  881 F.2d 1041· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 76×
  The court affirmed the denial of Westinghouse's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, but remanded for the district court to explain its denial of Mr. Verbraeken's requested supplemental relief.
• Colombo A. Spagnuolo v. Whirlpool Corp.
  641 F.2d 1109· 4th Cir.· 1981-02-26 ·cited 74×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury instructions were flawed, allowing a verdict based on age being 'a factor' rather than the 'determining factor' in discharge.
• Jasma Corp. v. Cap. Bank
  644 So. 2d 515· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-09-07 ·cited 73×
  Capital Bank appeals a judgment awarding MVB, Inc. compensatory and punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty, while MVB and Battaglia cross-appeal the denial of their motion to conform the verdict and adverse judgment on a promissory note. The court affirms the fiduciary dut
• Fisher v. The Agios Nicolaos V
  628 F.2d 308· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-10 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction, applying United States law, and that any errors in damage computation were harmless.
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Clausson P. Lexow
  602 So. 2d 528· Fla.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 72×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit regarding whether attorney's fees are recoverable under Florida Statute § 627.428(1) when an insured prevails in litigation against its subrogated insurer over entitlement to funds received from a t
• Shrove v. Shrove
  724 So. 2d 679· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-01-20 ·cited 71×
  A Florida appellate court reversed parts of a dissolution of marriage judgment, holding that the trial court must recalculate alimony and child support using correct net income figures for both parties, including the husband's bonus income, and must properly impute income to the
• LAM, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp. & Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  718 F.2d 1056· Fed. Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 70×
  The court held that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded on the trebled portion of damages, but affirmed the district court's awards for lost profits, reduced profits, projected lost profits, and attorneys' fees.
• Conway v. Electro Switch Corp.
  825 F.2d 593· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-06 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed the admission of managers' statements as relevant to corporate state-of-mind and the jury's verdict, but reversed the denial of interest on front pay, remanding for recalculation.
• Peter Marich & Assocs., Inc. v. Powell
  365 So. 2d 754· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-11-15 ·cited 68×
  An architectural firm successfully foreclosed a mechanic's lien against property owners for unpaid fees. The court awarded the firm prejudgment interest and attorney's fees as the prevailing party in the mechanic's lien action, but affirmed the denial of costs and rejected the pr
• Nolan Joseph Barrios v. La. Constr. Materials Co.
  465 F.2d 1157· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-01 ·cited 68×
• Haynes v. Rederi A/S Aladdin
  362 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1966-06-16 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the compensation insurer is entitled to full reimbursement from the total recovery obtained by the injured workman from a third party, and that attorney fees are not awardable from the insurer's recovery in this case.
• Nat'l Airlines, Inc. v. Beryl Whiteman Stiles
  268 F.2d 400· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-12 ·cited 68×
  The dissenting judge argues that the trial court's failure to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law necessitates reversal.
• Woods v. Barnett Bank OF Fort Lauder-Dale
  765 F.2d 1004· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 67×
  Barnett Bank is liable as an aider and abettor for securities fraud because its employee's "disastrously reckless" letter to the trustee bank constituted knowing and substantial assistance to the fraud, and the award of compensatory damages was affirmed.