Prejudgment Interest

2,312 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Wilfredo Colon Velez v. Puerto RICO Marine Mgmt., Inc.
  957 F.2d 933· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-28 ·cited 8×
  Section 9(b)(3) of the LMRA limits the NLRB's certification powers, not an employer's ability to voluntarily enter into or maintain a collective bargaining agreement with a union representing both guards and non-guards, nor the union's duty of fair representation to its guard mem
• Fla. Cmty. Health Ctr. & Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Ross
  590 So. 2d 1037· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-12-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) properly determined the claimant's average weekly wage and awarded benefits, prejudgment interest and penalties cannot be awarded against the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA).
• Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co., Inc.
  951 F.2d 504· 2d Cir.· 1991-12-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's actions did not demonstrate intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship, thus establishing diversity jurisdiction, and that the default judgment was not to be set aside due to willfulness and prejudice. However, the court remanded for recalculation o
• H.H. Robertson Co. v. V.S. DiCARLO Gen. Contractors, Inc.
  950 F.2d 572· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the quantum meruit claim should not have been submitted to the jury without limiting it to work outside the contract scope, and that the jury instructions were otherwise adequate. The prejudgment interest award on the contract retention amount was proper.
• Eastman Kodak Co. v. Westway Motor Freight, Inc.
  949 F.2d 317· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the market value rule was the proper measure of damages for destroyed film under the Interstate Commerce Act, and that the carrier failed to prove special reasons or mitigation failures to justify deviation from this rule.
• Borges v. OUR Lady OF THE SEA Corp.
  935 F.2d 436· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to disqualify counsel, striking the testimony of a witness due to the absence of an interpreter, or in its application of prejudgment interest on past damages. However, prejudgment interest
• Lopez v. Corporacion Insular de Seguros
  931 F.2d 116· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-19 ·cited 8×
  A private insurer of a state entity cannot assert the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity when sued under a direct action statute that grants a substantive claim against the insurer.
• Deniece Scales v. J.C. Bradford & Co.
  925 F.2d 901· 6th Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in limiting discovery and in failing to find a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination, but did not err in denying prejudgment interest or in its initial determination of attorney hourly rates.
• J.D. Hamilton v. 1ST Source Bank
  928 F.2d 86· 4th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the 180-day statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims under ADEA should be subject to a discovery rule, not applied mechanically.
• Mel Cyrak for Steve King v. Stan Lemon
  919 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Kramer and Lemon's appeals were untimely filed, and affirmed Weber's liability but reversed the damages award, finding that the district court erred in awarding both actual damages for the Rule 10b-5 violation and punitive damages.
• Jones v. Sterile Prods. Corp.
  572 So. 2d 519· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-11-08 ·cited 8×
  Edward Jones and Sterile Assembly Systems appealed from a summary judgment and permanent injunction awarding damages to Sterile Products Corporation for alleged breach of a noncompete covenant. The court reversed, finding that the summary judgment was improperly entered because m
• Powers v. Grinnell Corp.
  915 F.2d 34· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the scope of a civil complaint under the ADEA is limited by the administrative charge filed, and that an award of liquidated damages under the ADEA precludes prejudgment interest.
• United States Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Gurnee INN Corp.
  914 F.2d 815· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting injunctive relief, awarding back pay, and awarding compounded prejudgment interest.
• Hultgren v. Cnty. OF Lancaster
  913 F.2d 498· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that relief employees' sleep time constituted work time under the FLSA due to frequent interruptions and inadequate sleeping conditions, affirming liability for unpaid wages. However, the court reversed the award of liquidated damages, finding the county's reliance
• Keith v. Truck Stops Corp. OF Am.
  909 F.2d 743· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a motion for discretionary prejudgment interest is a Rule 59(e) motion, which must be filed within 10 days of judgment, and that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a jury's finding of negligence.
• Prime Mgmt. Co. v. Steinegger
  904 F.2d 811· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not bar the landlord's counterclaim for underpaid percentage rents, but remanded for reconsideration of prejudgment interest. The court affirmed the denial of the landlord's eviction claim and attorney's fees for defend
• Jurgens v. McKASY
  905 F.2d 382· Fed. Cir.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 8×
  A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion, including a motion for prejudgment interest, is ineffective.
• Pegues v. Miss. State Emp. Serv.
  899 F.2d 1449· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar prejudgment interest on a Title VII back pay award against a state agency, and a limitation on a back pay award based on a clearly erroneous factual finding is reversed.
• Allen & O'Hara, Inc. v. Barrett Wrecking, Inc.
  898 F.2d 512· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a party with a financial interest in a business relationship may interfere with a contract without liability if no wrongful means are used, and that oral modifications of written contract provisions requiring written change orders are permissible under Wiscons
• Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Comm'n
  895 F.2d 773· D.C. Cir.· 1990-02-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission's rulings on liability and interest for miners idled by a government-ordered shutdown are upheld, as its interpretations of the Mine Act were reasonable and defensible.
• Moore v. Subaru OF Am.
  891 F.2d 1445· 10th Cir.· 1989-12-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a loan-receipt agreement between a plaintiff and a tortfeasor's insurer is subject to set-off against a jury verdict under Oklahoma law, and that the jury's damage award will be upheld absent evidence of passion or prejudice.
• Farmland Indus., Inc. v. Andrews Transp. Co.
  888 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims sounded in contract, not conversion, entitling them to the longer statute of limitations and recovery for both loads of fuel. The court also reformed the judgment to award ten percent prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.
• Fleming v. Urdl's Waterfall Creations, Inc.
  549 So. 2d 1057· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-09-13 ·cited 8×
  Fleming homeowners appealed a judgment in a mechanic's lien foreclosure case where a contractor failed to properly construct a waterfall. The court reversed the damages award and attorney fees, holding that the trial court incorrectly applied an equitable solution rather than the
• Vickers v. Chiles Drilling Co.
  882 F.2d 158· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's apportionment of liability to Ingersoll-Rand and its award for mental pain and suffering were not clearly erroneous, but that post-judgment interest should run from the date of the second judgment.
• Gates v. Shell Offshore, Inc.
  881 F.2d 215· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that prejudgment interest should be awarded on future damages under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, applying Louisiana law. The court affirmed the denial of motions for directed verdict, JNOV, and new trial, and the jury's damage award.
• Kelley v. Sears
  882 F.2d 453· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that ERISA preempts state law claims against an insurer for bad faith handling of employee disability claims, and that a joint compensatory damages award requires a new trial against a remaining defendant if the award may have been influenced by the reversed defend
• Lowell Staats Mining Co., Inc. v. Pioneer Uravan, Inc.
  878 F.2d 1259· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-19 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the directed verdicts for Pioneer and Nuclear on piercing the corporate veil, fraudulent conveyances, and misrepresentation claims, and affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest.
• Barnett v. SEA Land Serv., Inc.
  875 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a settlement agreement reached during mediation is not binding unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties, and that the district court did not err in its findings regarding comparative negligence or the award of prejudgment interest.
• Burkett v. Rice
  542 So. 2d 480· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-05-05 ·cited 8×
  Affirmed judgment for buyers who suffered damages from sellers' failure to disclose material facts affecting property value, but reversed and remanded on cross-appeal to award attorneys' fees and correct prejudgment interest calculation.
• McMAHON v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co.
  870 F.2d 1073· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for summary judgment and directed verdict, admitting statistical expert testimony, reducing awards by retirement benefits, or denying prejudgment interest.
• The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF THE United States v. Porter-Englehart
  867 F.2d 79· 1st Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 8×
  A revoked will can be used to establish the terms of an inter vivos life insurance trust, and an insurer's unjustified withholding of undisputed proceeds may violate consumer protection laws.
• Bloch Equip. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Med. Indus., Inc.
  539 So. 2d 1140· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-12-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge's decision in a breach of contract action was supported by substantial competent evidence, but the denial of prejudgment interest was an error.
• Lummus Indus., Inc. v. D.M. & E. Corp.
  862 F.2d 267· Fed. Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instructions on patent infringement, specifically the distinction between repair and reconstruction, were adequate and that the verdict of infringement was supported by substantial evidence. The court also vacated the denial of prejudgment interest, r
• Am. Int'l Trading Corp. v. Petroleos Mexicanos
  835 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 8×
  An award of prejudgment interest is not mandatory in all Texas contract cases, but should be granted to a prevailing plaintiff in all but exceptional circumstances, and the trial court's denial without explanation requires remand.
• Concorde Limousines, Inc. v. Moloney Coachbuilders, Inc.
  835 F.2d 541· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the award of damages and attorney's fees under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act but remanded for reconsideration of prejudgment interest.
• Lewis v. S.L. & E., Inc.
  831 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1987-10-08 ·cited 8×
  A stockholder derivative suit seeking damages for waste of corporate assets is a legal claim, entitling the corporation to prejudgment interest as a matter of right under CPLR § 5001(a).
• The Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Warren
  841 F.2d 134· 6th Cir.· 1987-09-30 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the award of Black Lung benefits but remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, finding the award of interest from the initial determination date was improper.
• Universal GYM Equip., Inc. v. Erwa Exercise Equip. Ltd. & Global Gym & Fitness Equip. Ltd.
  827 F.2d 1542· Fed. Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly found no patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and that the contract provision prohibiting the use of licensor's features and designs post-termination was not preempted by patent law. However, the case is remanded f
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. AIR Fla. Sys., Inc.
  822 F.2d 833· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Air Florida breached its contract by failing to make a bona fide tender offer, and that the arbitrator's decision to proceed without an oral hearing was not grounds to vacate the award.
• Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc.
  802 F.2d 1193· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly found an implied-in-fact contract and awarded damages, but modified the damage award, punitive damages, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest.
• Cal. & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. Kan. City Terminal Warehouse Co., Inc.
  788 F.2d 1331· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of prejudgment interest and in awarding prejudgment interest on the breach of contract and warehouseman's duty claims, as the damages were readily ascertainable under Missouri law.
• In re Frigitemp Corp. Lawson F. Bernstein in Bankr. of Frigitemp Corp. v. Lefrak
  781 F.2d 324· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a motion to amend a judgment to include prejudgment interest, when not awarded in the original judgment, is not a 'clerical mistake' correctable under Rule 60(a) if there is no clear indication the court intended to award such interest.
• Benefit Tr. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Nat'l Bank OF Pittsburgh d.b.n.c.t.a. of the Est. of Michael F. DeJohn
  776 F.2d 1174· 3d Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 8×
  Pennsylvania law does not impose a duty to interplead on life insurance companies, and prejudgment interest on contractually owed sums is generally awarded at the legal rate, not the insurer's rate of return.
• Mary G. Lattin and the Estate of William C. Lattin v. La France
  475 So. 2d 299· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-09-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded when the promissory note explicitly excludes interest.
• United States v. State OF W. Va.
  764 F.2d 1028· 4th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the State is liable for costs incurred by the federal government under a disaster relief agreement and is also entitled to prejudgment interest on that amount.
• Jennings v. Dumas Pub. Sch. Dist.
  763 F.2d 28· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the school district failed to prove the teacher waived statutory contract renewal rights and that the teacher's enhanced earning capacity did not accrue during the back pay period.
• Vito Taliercio v. Compania Empressa Lineas Argentina
  761 F.2d 126· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-03 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the shipowner was negligent in maintaining a dangerous door and that the plaintiff's contributory negligence did not relieve the shipowner of all liability, and that the prejudgment interest calculation, while not ide
• Meller v. The Heil Co.
  745 F.2d 1297· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that evidence of post-manufacture design changes was admissible to show the feasibility of alternative designs under Federal Rule of Evidence 407 and that the Colorado statute did not bar its admission. The court also held that the exclusion of drug paraphernalia e
• Stovall v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co.
  722 F.2d 190· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 8×
  Pre-judgment interest awarded in the 1981 judgment is to be compounded annually as per Mississippi law, but post-judgment interest is to be computed on a simple-interest basis.
• Exxon Corp. v. Ward
  438 So. 2d 1059· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-10-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest on the conversion claim, as damages for conversion include the fair market value of the property plus legal interest to the date of judgment.