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

• Coastal Iron Works, Inc. v. Petty RAY Geophysical
  783 F.2d 577· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the 'red letter clause' limiting liability in the ship repair contract was valid and enforceable under maritime law, and that the insurance policy exclusion for failing to meet fire safety standards was ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the insured
• United States v. Glynn Batson & Southplains Land Corp.
  782 F.2d 1307· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that administrative determinations regarding cotton subsidy overpayments are final and not subject to judicial review unless the agency violated its own regulations, and that prejudgment interest should be awarded from the date of the payments, not the final admini
• City OF Farmington v. Amoco GAS Co.
  777 F.2d 554· 10th Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's interpretation of the contract's indefinite price escalator clause, in light of regulatory changes, was not clearly erroneous, and its award of prejudgment interest was not an abuse of discretion.
• Digit. Sys. OF Fla., Inc. v. Committe
  472 So. 2d 533· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-06-27 ·cited 10×
  Digital Systems of Florida appealed a jury verdict awarding Thomas Committe $92,000 in quantum meruit damages for consulting services rendered without a written contract. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that while evidence of Digital's increased value was properly admitt
• Cashman v. Allied Prods. Corp.
  761 F.2d 1250· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's award of lost profits was supported by sufficient evidence and that the district court properly admitted expert testimony regarding those profits. The court also affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest and lost officers' salaries.
• ALL Am. Life & Cas. Co. v. Oceanic Trade Alliance Council Int'l, Inc.
  756 F.2d 474· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-08 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence and that the claim was reasonably in dispute, thus precluding penalty interest.
• W.B. Farms v. Fremont Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co.
  756 F.2d 663· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-07 ·cited 10×
  An oral agreement by a drawee bank to pay a check when sufficient funds are in the drawer's account is valid and enforceable under Nebraska law, and sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that such an agreement was made.
• Warren Hunnicutt, JR., Inc. v. Gleason
  462 So. 2d 878· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-02-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to award costs and prejudgment interest on the contract claim, but correctly dismissed the 'procuring cause' claim.
• Entron, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.
  749 F.2d 127· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-23 ·cited 10×
  An insurance policy's 'cost of transcription' for damaged drawings can include engineering research costs necessary to replace missing information, and prejudgment interest may be awarded on unliquidated contract damages if justice and fair dealing dictate.
• United States v. A.I. Reisz & Nat'l Sur. Corp.
  718 F.2d 1004· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a party must move for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence to preserve a motion for judgment n.o.v., and that prejudgment interest should not have been awarded on an unliquidated counterclaim that offset a liquidated claim.
• Vanech v. Hartsfield & SON, Inc.
  444 So. 2d 431· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-10-26 ·cited 10×
• Hasbro Indus., Inc. v. M/S "ST. Constantine
  705 F.2d 339· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that time charterers are not liable for cargo loss due to a ship's unseaworthiness if the charterers exercised due diligence, even if the shipowner did not.
• A. O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc. v. Suber Cattle Co.
  416 So. 2d 1176· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-06-18 ·cited 10×
  Harvestore, a manufacturer of specialized feed silos, appealed a jury verdict finding it negligent and in breach of warranty after a fire destroyed a customer's feed mill. The court affirmed the negligence verdict but reversed the trial court's denial of prejudgment interest to t
• MA v. The Cmty. Bank
  686 F.2d 459· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to consequential damages in the form of a higher interest rate on the principal funds wrongfully withheld, but not for other speculative losses or attorneys' fees under Wisconsin law.
• Berns v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  667 F.2d 826· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding loss of inheritance, prejudgment interest, jury instructions, or the denial of a new trial motion, and affirmed the award of costs to the plaintiffs.
• Kenworth OF Tampa, Inc. v. Turnkey Dev. Corp.
  407 So. 2d 1063· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-12-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that prejudgment interest should be awarded on a liquidated claim from the date of demand, not the date of judgment.
• Havis v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.
  664 F.2d 54· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-14 ·cited 10×
  In a diversity maritime case tried to a jury, the award of pre-judgment interest must be submitted to the jury, not decided by the judge post-verdict.
• Bebchick v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n
  645 F.2d 1086· D.C. Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the starting point for determining appreciation in value of transferred properties to offset a depreciation deficiency must be book value, not market value at acquisition. It also ruled on the calculation of taxes, the accrual of interest on restitution, the a
• Mitchell v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  579 F.2d 342· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury instructions were insufficient and that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the defendants on the issue of reliance on the agreement with the appraiser, reversing and remanding for a new trial.
• Special Promotions, Inc. v. Sw. Photos, Ltd.
  559 F.2d 430· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's findings of joint venture and control were consistent and supported the judgment, and that any errors in jury instructions were harmless.
• Edward C. REA & 22 Ford Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  560 F.2d 554· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-06 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the judgment, finding that neither the corporation nor its officer had a cause of action under the Dealers' Day in Court Act, and that damages were improperly calculated.
• Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Zenith Radio Corp. & The Rauland Corp.
  537 F.2d 896· 7th Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the patents were valid and infringed, the award of prejudgment interest was improper because the circumstances did not meet the circuit's high standard for 'exceptional circumstances'.
• United States for the Use of Indus. Lumber Co., Inc. v. F. D. Rich Co., Inc.
  473 F.2d 720· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Cerpac was a subcontractor under the Miller Act, making Industrial's notice timely, and that attorneys' fees are recoverable in Miller Act cases under California law.
• Elte, Inc. v. S. S. Mullen, Inc.
  469 F.2d 1127· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a subcontractor is entitled to damages for work performed due to the prime contractor's breach in failing to provide a suitable quarry, and that prejudgment interest is allowable on liquidated or determinable unliquidated claims.
• Crooks v. United States
  459 F.2d 631· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-20 ·cited 10×
• ROE v. Baggett Transp. Co., Inc.
  326 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1963-12-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that pre-judgment interest is not due on unliquidated accounts where the amount cannot be made certain until after an accounting and court decree.
• Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States
  302 F.2d 887· D.C. Cir.· 1962-04-26 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the Board's order finding Flota engaged in discriminatory shipping practices but set aside the reparations order, remanding for reconsideration of the equity and calculation of damages.
• HERTZ v. Graham
  292 F.2d 443· 2d Cir.· 1961-07-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest as a matter of law, but affirmed the jury's verdict on liability and damages, remanding for a jury determination on discretionary interest.
• Robert C. Herd & Co., Inc. v. Krawill Mach. Corp.
  256 F.2d 946· 4th Cir.· 1958-06-16 ·cited 10×
  A stevedore's independent negligence does not entitle them to the carrier's statutory limitation of liability under Cogsa.
• Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Gore
  344 So. 3d 1· Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-04-13 ·cited 9×
  The appellate court reversed an attorney's fees award, holding that a non-settling defendant is entitled to a reduction in fees to prevent a double recovery when another defendant has already paid for the same fees. The court affirmed other issues on appeal.
• The Burton Fam. P'ship v. Luani Plaza, Inc.
  276 So. 3d 920· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-07-03 ·cited 9×
  The appellate court affirmed an award of attorney's fees, including fees for litigating the amount of fees, but reversed the prejudgment interest awarded on those fees. The court clarified that prejudgment interest on attorney's fees should only accrue from the date entitlement i
• Rotta v. Rotta
  34 So. 3d 107· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-04-14 ·cited 9×
  In a dissolution of marriage appeal, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that a trial court improperly vacated a settlement agreement by returning $400,000 the husband had voluntarily paid to reduce a debt, as this relief was never pleaded or tried and courts cannot r
• Lamar v. Justo Lamar, III
  889 So. 2d 983· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-12-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by setting an unreasonably low purge payment for a substantial child support arrearage and erred in placing the burden of proof on the former wife to show the former husband's ability to pay attorney's fees.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Yun
  148 F. Supp. 2d 1287· M.D. Fla.· 2001-05-23 ·cited 9×
  The court ordered disgorgement of $269,000 jointly against both defendants, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties of $100,000 each, but denied the SEC's request for permanent injunctions.
• Casey v. Stanford Cohan
  740 So. 2d 59· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-06-30 ·cited 9×
  Patrick Casey appealed a judgment finding him liable on a promissory note for his portion of a bank stock purchase and denying his fraud-based defenses. The court affirmed, holding that the seller's nondisclosure of a secret side agreement was not a material fact because it did n
• Cmty. Bank OF Homestead v. Torcise
  162 F.3d 1084· 11th Cir.· 1998-12-11 ·cited 9×
  Community Bank loaned Torcise $1.5 million secured by farm property; after Torcise defaulted and filed bankruptcy, Community Bank foreclosed in state court and obtained a judgment including prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's
• Est. OF Barbara L. Reynolds v. Martin
  985 F.2d 470· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-09 ·cited 9×
  The Civil Rights Act of 1991 applies to pending cases, entitling federal employees to pre- and post-judgment interest on awards under the Rehabilitation Act.
• Tunnell v. Hicks
  574 So. 2d 264· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-02-06 ·cited 9×
  The court held that while summary judgment for conversion was proper, the award of prejudgment interest was not permissible against a state subdivision.
• Cordero v. De Jesus-Mendez
  922 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 9×
  Postjudgment interest accrues from the date of the judgment entered after a retrial ordered due to insufficient evidence, not from the date of the original vacated judgment.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n & Pa. Human Relations Comm'n v. United States Steel Corp.
  921 F.2d 489· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 9×
  Individuals who have fully litigated their own age discrimination claims are precluded by res judicata from obtaining individual relief in a subsequent EEOC action based on the same claims.
• Earl v. Bouchard Transp. Co., Inc.
  917 F.2d 1320· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions regarding contributory negligence and loss of enjoyment of life, and affirmed the denial of a new trial, but reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment related to maintenance and cure.
• Rosen v. Rucker
  905 F.2d 702· 3d Cir.· 1990-06-18 ·cited 9×
  The court held that defendants' failure to make a written settlement offer under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 makes them liable for delay damages, regardless of plaintiffs' settlement demands or alleged trial delays.
• Dole v. Shenandoah Baptist Church
  899 F.2d 1389· 4th Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to church-operated schools and their employees, and that such application does not violate the First or Fifth Amendments.
• Fla. Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec. v. United States Dep't OF Labor
  893 F.2d 1319· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Debt Collection Act of 1982 does not apply to claims arising under contracts executed before October 25, 1982, and therefore does not preclude the federal government's common law right to collect prejudgment interest from a state agency.
• Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Am. Sec. Bank, N.A.
  890 F.2d 456· D.C. Cir.· 1989-12-01 ·cited 9×
• Miller v. Reinhart
  548 So. 2d 1174· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-09-13 ·cited 9×
  In this partnership dispute, the court reversed a jury trial judgment on multiple grounds, finding that directed verdicts were improperly entered for Reinhart on civil theft and breach of contract claims, that punitive damages should have been submitted to the jury on the fraud c
• Amado Salazar Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass'n
  863 F.2d 384· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the breach of contract theory was improperly considered on remand, and reversed the joint and several liability finding for the 1978 work agreement breach. It affirmed class certification and most damage calculations but reversed the award of attorneys' fees.
• A.L. West v. Sunbelt Enters.
  530 So. 2d 433· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-08-30 ·cited 9×
  The court held that appellees are entitled to statutory interest on the full condemnation award from the date of deposit until funds were available, and affirmed the denial of interest on previously awarded prejudgment interest.
• Universal Res. Corp. v. Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co.
  813 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 9×
  The court held that Panhandle's insecurity regarding future makeup gas was not reasonable, and the take-or-pay clause was unambiguous and enforceable.
• Marathon Pipe Line Co. v. M/V SEA Level II
  806 F.2d 585· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the appellants were liable for pipeline damage due to their captain's negligence, and that Oceanonics was not contractually obligated to indemnify them or liable for the damage. The court also affirmed the district court's damage award and prejudgment interest