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

• West v. Harris
  573 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-26 ·cited 66×
  The court held that damage caused by earth movement, even if triggered by flood, is excluded under the National Flood Insurance Act policies, but prejudgment interest is allowable under federal law.
• Socony Mobil OIL Co., Inc. v. Tex. Coastal & Int'l, Inc.
  559 F.2d 1008· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-23 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the denial of prejudgment interest was an abuse of discretion, and that the findings of fact regarding liability were not clearly erroneous.
• Colonial Refrigerated Transp., Inc. v. Mitchell
  403 F.2d 541· 5th Cir.· 1968-10-29 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding joint enterprise and reliance, but erred in refusing to admit certain affidavits. The court also found that prejudgment interest was due to the plaintiffs under Texas law.
• La. & Ark. Ry. Co. v. Exp. Drum Co., Inc.
  359 F.2d 311· 5th Cir.· 1966-04-13 ·cited 66×
• White v. Steak & ALE OF Fla., Inc.
  816 So. 2d 546· Fla.· 2002-04-18 ·cited 65×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that pre-offer taxable costs must be included when calculating the "judgment obtained" under Florida's offer of judgment statute (§ 768.79) to determine whether a defendant-offeror is entitled to post-offer attorneys' fees and costs. The Court resol
• Grover Harrison v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana
  577 F.2d 968· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-07 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the trial court's findings on causation, warning adequacy, and damages were not clearly erroneous, but its finding that the employer was not negligent was clearly erroneous due to failure to provide protective gear.
• Myles Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc.
  825 F.2d 1521· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-31 ·cited 64×
  Notices of appeal filed before the district court's final judgment on prejudgment interest are ineffective. An appeal from a nonfinal order taxing costs is also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand
  649 F.2d 175· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-28 ·cited 64×
  An accounting firm can be held liable under respondeat superior for an employee's securities law violations when the firm issues an opinion letter intended to influence investors, creating a stringent duty to supervise. The trial court erred in deciding 'culpable participation' u
• Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Amirault
  202 F.2d 893· 1st Cir.· 1953-03-19 ·cited 64×
  A federal court cannot apply a state statute to award pre-judgment interest in a maritime tort case, as such claims are governed by federal maritime law.
• Tex. E. Transmission Corp. v. Marine Office-Appleton & COX Corp.
  579 F.2d 561· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-23 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the "all risks" insurance policy covered the collapse of the underground cavern, as the loss was fortuitous and not within the policy's exclusions, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, venue decision, or interest
• Sanford Bros. Boats, Inc. v. Dalvis Vidrine
  412 F.2d 958· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-15 ·cited 63×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict for the seaman on claims of negligence and unseaworthiness, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings.
• Kopel v. Bernardo Kopel
  229 So. 3d 812· Fla.· 2017-01-26 ·cited 62×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among district courts regarding the relation back doctrine under Rule 1.190(c), holding that amended complaints asserting new legal claims can relate back to the original filing if they arise from the same conduct, transaction, or occ
• Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Percefull
  653 So. 2d 389· Fla.· 1995-04-06 ·cited 62×
  An insured person is entitled to prejudgment interest on amounts due under a contract of insurance that provides for claims to be paid directly to the insured, from the date the debt is due, without requiring proof of out-of-pocket expenses.
• Blackburn v. Linwood Snow
  771 F.2d 556· 1st Cir.· 1985-08-22 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the strip search of a prison visitor violated the Fourth Amendment and that the defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity.
• Mallis v. Bankers Tr. Co.
  717 F.2d 683· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-01 ·cited 62×
  A trial judge may legitimately consider the passage of time and the procedural history of a case when exercising discretion on a motion for a new trial.
• McKAY v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
  704 F.2d 444· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 62×
  The Feres-Stencel doctrine and government contractor defense do not shield Rockwell from liability for defective equipment, and the collateral source rule requires reversal of damage reductions based on VA benefits.
• Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Turbine Serv., Inc.
  674 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-29 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding Todd Shipyards guilty of gross negligence, thus the limitation of liability clause was effective. The court affirmed liability for the river casualty but modified the damages awarded.
• Terkildsen v. Waters
  481 F.2d 201· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-27 ·cited 62×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that defendants waived the issue of prejudgment interest by not raising it below, and plaintiff could not appeal her own claim as it was not included in her notice of appeal.
• Gulf Coast Bldg. & Supply Co., Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, Local NO. 480, AFL-CIO
  460 F.2d 105· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-12 ·cited 62×
  The district court erred in reforming a prior judgment to remove prejudgment interest because the appellate court's prior affirmance was law of the case, and the motion for relief under Rule 60(b) was untimely and improperly applied.
• Cook v. The Deltona Corp.
  753 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 61×
  The court held that Deltona's performance was not rendered impossible by increased regulation, affirming the directed verdict for breach of contract, but remanded for determination of the date Deltona knew development was impossible to calculate damages.
• Turner v. Japan Lines, Ltd.
  702 F.2d 752· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-08 ·cited 61×
  Interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is allowed from the date of the original jury verdict when a judgment n.o.v. is reversed and the verdict is reinstated, and the rate is determined by the state law in effect at the time of the original judgment entry.
• Morgan v. The Ark. Gazette
  897 F.2d 945· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-02 ·cited 59×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of age discrimination and the award of back pay and prejudgment interest, but insufficient evidence to support a finding of willfulness for liquidated damages. Reinstatement was affirmed.
• H.M. Stickle v. Heublein, Inc.
  716 F.2d 1550· Fed. Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 59×
  The court held that Heublein failed to establish a license and affirmed the district court's finding of patent infringement. It reversed the dismissal of the breach of warranty counterclaim due to insufficient notice.
• Barcellona v. Tiffany English PUB, Inc.
  597 F.2d 464· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-20 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the employer's "nondefiant ignorance" was insufficient to deny liquidated damages under the FLSA, and reversed the denial of prejudgment interest.
• U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co.
  854 F.2d 1223· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the sale of FEK stock constituted a security transaction, that the assignment provision did not preclude USI from asserting claims, and that the trial court did not err in denying full credit for settlement amounts.
• Coy R. Grogan and John Henson v. Garner
  806 F.2d 829· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-08 ·cited 58×
  The court held that plaintiffs had standing to bring an individual action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty based on direct harm, and that they were entitled to the maximum recoverable damages under any single theory, not requiring an election of remedies.
• United States & Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. LEE WAY Motor Freight, Inc.
  625 F.2d 918· 10th Cir.· 1979-09-21 ·cited 58×
  The court concurred with back pay awards for minority claimants but dissented on the calculation of those awards and the scope of remand.
• Taylor v. Philips Indus., Inc.
  593 F.2d 783· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-26 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the finding of sex discrimination but reversed and remanded the damages award, holding that the plaintiff proved wage discrimination but failed to establish the extent of her losses from wrongful discharge.
• Morton I. Thomas v. Duralite Co., Inc.
  524 F.2d 577· 3d Cir.· 1975-10-08 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the defendants Lesser and Zakin were liable for securities fraud due to misrepresentation and nondisclosure, but the corporation Duralite was not liable. The damage award was remanded for recalculation to properly account for the defendants' special efforts.
• Speed v. Transamerica Corp. Appeal of William S. Speed
  235 F.2d 369· 3d Cir.· 1956-08-14 ·cited 58×
  The court held that while the district court correctly found Transamerica liable for fraud and securities violations, it erred in reducing the pre-judgment interest rate. The court modified the judgment to increase the pre-judgment interest rate from 2% to 4% per annum.
• Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Boleslaus J. Chmielewski
  573 So. 2d 876· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-12-06 ·cited 57×
  Orlando Regional Medical Center appealed a jury verdict finding it 77% liable for medical malpractice in a case involving a puncture wound to a patient's foot where a foreign object was not discovered. The court affirmed the liability finding under apparent agency doctrine but re
• Short v. Central States
  729 F.2d 567· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-12 ·cited 57×
  The court held that owner-operators Short and Zorn were employees under the pension plan, entitling them to benefits, and that procedural requirements for benefit denials were not met in Short's case.
• McCLANAHAN v. Mathews
  440 F.2d 320· 6th Cir.· 1971-04-08 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in denying liquidated damages and that the issue of pre-judgment interest requires further findings. The court affirmed the back pay and attorney fees awards.
• Coston v. Plitt Theatres, Inc.
  831 F.2d 1321· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 56×
  The court's prior precedent, which holds the 'knew or should have known' standard for willfulness is consistent with Thurston, controls the present decision, but this standard is questioned.
• Glick v. White Motor Co.
  458 F.2d 1287· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-20 ·cited 56×
  A party who assumes another party's position and judgment identity to prosecute an appeal cannot claim greater rights than the original party, and is bound by the original party's trial conduct and admissions.
• Pearson v. Ne. Airlines, Inc.
  309 F.2d 553· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-11 ·cited 56×
  A federal court sitting in New York may constitutionally apply New York's public policy regarding wrongful death recovery limits, even when the cause of action arises under a Massachusetts statute with a lower limit, provided New York has substantial contacts with the transaction
• Marc E. Bosem, M.D. v. Musa Holdings, Inc.
  46 So. 3d 42· Fla.· 2010-09-23 ·cited 55×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between Fourth District precedent and its own holding in Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co. regarding prejudgment interest on lost profits damages. The Court held that under Florida's established "loss theory," prejudgment int
• Berek v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  422 So. 2d 838· Fla.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 55×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that court costs and post-judgment interest are recoverable in tort actions against the state and its subdivisions, but only up to the statutory liability cap of $50,000 per claimant. The Court clarified that while general cost and interest statutes
• ST. Louis Union Tr. Co. v. Merrill Lynch
  562 F.2d 1040· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-26 ·cited 55×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by exercising repurchase options without a justifiable business reason, particularly when they were committed to going public.
• Gulf Solar, Inc. v. Westfall
  447 So. 2d 363· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-03-09 ·cited 54×
  Gulf Solar and its president Bax appealed a judgment awarding Westfall damages for unpaid commission/override compensation from an alleged oral employment contract. The court affirmed the finding of a valid oral contract not barred by the statute of frauds, but reversed the trial
• Gorenstein Enters., Inc. v. Quality Care-Usa, Inc.
  874 F.2d 431· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-02 ·cited 53×
  The court's essential reasoning on prejudgment interest is sound and does not depart from circuit law.
• Tierney A. O'Rourke v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  730 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 53×
  The court should have awarded prejudgment interest to the plaintiff on the $75,000 award.
• Milgo Elec. Corp. v. United Bus. Commc'ns, Inc.
  623 F.2d 645· 10th Cir.· 1980-05-29 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the Milgo patents were valid and infringed, and that the trial court did not err in its findings regarding patent validity, infringement, and the admissibility of evidence of copying.
• Koonce v. Quaker Safety Prods. & Mfg. Co.
  798 F.2d 700· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that under Texas law, a defendant seeking indemnity or contribution from a third-party joint tortfeasor is not barred by the statute of limitations, even if the plaintiff's direct claim against the third party is time-barred.
• United States v. Exxon Corp.
  773 F.2d 1240· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the District Court's order to pay overcharge funds to the Treasury without notice and hearing to potential victims violated equitable principles and Due Process.
• Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Auto Transp., S.A.
  763 F.2d 745· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 52×
  The law of the case doctrine bars reconsideration of issues decided in a prior appeal, and attorney's fees awarded for breach of warranty are foreseeable damages subject to contractual limitations.
• Delano v. Kitch
  663 F.2d 990· 10th Cir.· 1981-10-23 ·cited 52×
  A director/officer who acts as a negotiator for a sale of corporate stock and accepts a secret finder's fee from the buyer, without disclosure and consent of all shareholders, breaches their fiduciary duty, even if other shareholders are majority owners selling their control inte
• Draper v. Airco, Inc.
  580 F.2d 91· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-28 ·cited 52×
  Improper remarks by plaintiff's counsel in closing argument prejudiced the jury, requiring a new trial on both liability and damages.
• Marvyn Gould v. American-Hawaiian S.S. Co.
  535 F.2d 761· 3d Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the defendant was entitled to a trial on issues of materiality and negligence, and summary judgment was inappropriate.
• Dennis v. Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp.
  453 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-04 ·cited 52×