Prejudgment Interest

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

• N.E.P. Int'l, Inc. v. Falls
  629 So. 2d 1019· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-12-29 ·cited 6×
  A tenant breached a commercial lease, and the lessor recovered judgment for all future rent under an acceleration clause. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to reduce future damages to present value and failed to provide for an accounting to
• Chillemi v. Rorabeck
  629 So. 2d 206· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-11-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while summary judgment on liability for fraudulent misrepresentation was proper due to the sellers' failure to respond, the award of compensatory and punitive damages was based on erroneous calculations and speculation, requiring reversal and remand for a new
• Bryant v. Carter Bryant
  621 So. 2d 574· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-07-23 ·cited 6×
  Worker's compensation awards are not exempt from claims for child support, as child support is not considered a debt to a creditor.
• Reilly v. Barrera
  620 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to award prejudgment interest on past due installment payments and attorney's fees as provided in the note.
• Maxfly Aviation, Inc. v. Gill
  605 So. 2d 1297· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-10-07 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the buyer in a breach of contract action for the sale of an airplane, but reversed and remanded the buyer's cross-appeal regarding prejudgment interest.
• Reyher v. Champion Int'l Corp.
  975 F.2d 483· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that motions for liquidated damages and prejudgment interest filed more than two months after judgment were untimely under Rule 59, but the motion for attorney's fees was not subject to Rule 59's time limit. The court affirmed the jury's verdict on the merits but r
• Nielsen-Miller Constr. Co. v. Pantlin/Prescott, Inc.
  602 So. 2d 1366· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-07-29 ·cited 6×
  A promissory note that is silent on the subject of interest does not waive post-default interest, and the statutory rate applies to post-judgment interest when the note specifies no rate.
• Clarke v. Frank
  960 F.2d 1146· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes a remand is necessary for factual determinations regarding attorney's fees and prejudgment interest, disagreeing with the majority's award of these amounts.
• Myron ASH v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
  957 F.2d 432· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-03 ·cited 6×
  A plaintiff who accepts a remittitur in lieu of a new trial cannot appeal the judgment, but can appeal subsequent rulings like the denial of prejudgment interest.
• LEE Cnty. v. Sager
  595 So. 2d 177· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-02-21 ·cited 6×
  Lee County initiated eminent domain proceedings and made an offer of judgment of $123,900. When the jury verdict was $122,000 (below the offer), the trial court added statutory interest of $5,509, resulting in a total judgment of $127,509. The court held that prejudgment interest
• Wickham Contracting Co., Inc. v. Local Union NO. 3, Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO
  955 F.2d 831· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-29 ·cited 6×
  An award of prejudgment interest under Section 303 of the LMRA is within the sound discretion of the district court and is permissible to fully compensate the wronged party, even if damages are unliquidated.
• Hays v. Altamira Constr. Corp.
  591 So. 2d 257· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-10-09 ·cited 6×
• Justine Realty Co. v. Am. Nat'l CAN Co.
  945 F.2d 1044· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Justine's post-judgment motion for attorney fees was not a request for fees attributable to the case, and therefore did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
• Williams Enters., Inc. v. The Sherman R. Smoot Co.
  938 F.2d 230· D.C. Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's damage awards except for the cost of capital, which was remanded for recalculation, and sanctioned Williams's counsel for procedural misconduct.
• Potti v. Duramed Pharms., Inc.
  938 F.2d 641· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the Escrow Agreement ambiguous and allowing the jury to interpret it, and that the admission of certain testimony and evidence regarding consequential damages was improper.
• Toscano v. Chandris, S.A.
  934 F.2d 383· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that defendants waived their objections to prejudgment interest by failing to raise them properly in the district court and that the issue of interest on future damages was not properly before the appellate court due to procedural failures.
• Tibbetts v. Nichols
  578 So. 2d 17· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-04-09 ·cited 6×
  The Tibbetts purchased a trailer park from the Nichols but discovered after closing that a tenant held a valid long-term lease at below-market rent, which the Nichols had failed to disclose. The trial court found the Nichols breached their warranty deed covenants but awarded only
• Leon v. W. Collier Props., Inc.
  575 So. 2d 1316· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-02-13 ·cited 6×
  Leon purchased property from West Collier Properties through an agreement for deed based on fraudulent misrepresentations about the property's condition. The trial court awarded Leon the amount he had paid but denied prejudgment interest, reasoning the judgment was based on resci
• Beatrice Foods Co. v. NEW England Printing & Lithographing Co.
  923 F.2d 1576· Fed. Cir.· 1991-01-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 must be based on willful infringement or bad faith, not merely to compensate for difficulties in proving actual damages. Prejudgment interest can only be applied to the compensatory portion of the award.
• The Nodaway Valley Bank v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  916 F.2d 1362· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 6×
• In re Agric. Research & Tech. Grp., Inc. v. Palm Seedlings Partners-A
  916 F.2d 528· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that transfers made as part of a Ponzi scheme, without reasonably equivalent value and with actual intent to defraud creditors, are avoidable by a bankruptcy trustee.
• Stanley Gudyka Sales Co. v. Lacy Forest Prods. Co.
  915 F.2d 273· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the termination of the sales agreement was without 'just cause' and upholding the awarded damages.
• In re the Complaint v. M/V Damodar Tanabe
  903 F.2d 675· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a carrier claiming a COGSA fire exception does not lose the exception simply because the vessel was unseaworthy, if the unseaworthiness did not cause the loss.
• Sheridan Transp. Co. & TUG NEW York Co. v. United States
  897 F.2d 795· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government failed to provide adequate notice of the repositioned wreck buoy's location relative to the actual wrecks, and that prejudgment interest should run from the date the suit was filed, not the date of the accident.
• Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc.
  897 F.2d 511· Fed. Cir.· 1990-02-23 ·cited 6×
  The court granted Gencor's motion for a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal, finding a substantial legal question regarding patent validity and that the balance of harms tipped in Gencor's favor.
• Nelson v. United Sec. Life Co.
  889 F.2d 141· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying prejudgment interest to plaintiffs who did not redeem their stock, finding their decision not to redeem was reasonable. The court affirmed the district court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict on punitive damages.
• Se. Cap. Inv. Corp. v. Albemarle Hotel, Inc.
  550 So. 2d 49· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-08-23 ·cited 6×
  Southeast Capital Investment Corporation and its parent company Southeast Capital Corporation appealed a judgment requiring specific performance of a hotel purchase contract. The trial court pierced the corporate veil to hold the parent liable for the subsidiary's obligations and
• Ostano Commerzanstalt v. Telewide Sys., Inc.
  880 F.2d 642· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that adding a new plaintiff after trial was permissible under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(b) and 21, and modified the calculation of contract damages, reducing the award.
• Gen. Elec. Co. & Carboloy, Inc. v. Speicher
  877 F.2d 531· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the award of damages on the counterclaim should be set aside, the counterclaim dismissed, and the case remanded for a new trial.
• McGEHEE v. The Panama Canal Comm'n & S/S Texaco Ky.
  872 F.2d 1213· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Panama Canal Commission is not subject to an award of prejudgment or postjudgment interest because Congress has not expressly waived sovereign immunity for interest awards, nor does the Commission operate as a commercial enterprise.
• OTS Elevator Co. v. Scott
  551 So. 2d 489· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-03-08 ·cited 6×
  This case concerns whether damages for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205, Florida Statutes, can include emotional distress.
• Felch v. AIR Fla., Inc.
  866 F.2d 1521· D.C. Cir.· 1989-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Virginia law applied to the workers' compensation lien, requiring the carrier to pay a pro rata share of attorney's fees, and that claims regarding the reasonableness of fees and prejudgment interest were waived by not being raised below.
• Agristor Leasing v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc.
  869 F.2d 264· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a disclaimer of reliance in a lease is ineffective against claims of fraud or negligent misrepresentation under Tennessee law, and that sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury's findings on reliance, causation, damages, and prejudgment interest.
• Coopers & Lybrand v. Trs. of the Archdiocese of Miami/Diocese of ST. Petersburg Health & Welf. Plan
  536 So. 2d 278· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-12-06 ·cited 6×
  Coopers & Lybrand appealed a judgment finding it negligent in failing to discover that an administrator had diverted stop-loss insurance premiums and that coverage had lapsed. The court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that Coopers could be held liable for the diver
• Bandag v. Nat'l Acceptance Co. OF Am.
  855 F.2d 491· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the letter of guaranty obligated NAC upon shipment of goods, not when the invoices became due, and that the district court erred in dismissing the claim.
• United States v. Feterl
  849 F.2d 354· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the EDA's claim was not time-barred and that Feterl's rent claim was a valid recoupment against his guaranty obligation.
• Snyder v. Whittaker Corp.
  839 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-14 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that substantial evidence supported findings of defective design, causation, allocation of fault, and damages, and that prejudgment interest was permissible in a DOHSA case tried on the law side.
• Tucker v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg.
  521 So. 2d 146· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-01-28 ·cited 6×
  Attorney's fees and costs incurred to recover actual damages are recoverable as compensatory damages from the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund.
• Riles v. Bennett
  831 F.2d 875· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that prejudgment interest is recoverable on misspent federal grant funds, as it constitutes a remedy for noncompliance rather than an additional condition for the grant, and the federal interest in full compensation outweighs minimal state interests.
• Total Petroleum, Inc. v. Davis
  822 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Davis was equitably estopped from denying the truth of his prior factual allegations to reduce his liability, and that Total was entitled to a set-off of the full amount owed for petroleum products received after September 21, 1981. The court also affirmed the
• Evich v. Morris
  819 F.2d 256· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 6×
  A general federal maritime survival action preempts state law, and future economic loss, punitive damages, and prejudgment interest are recoverable.
• Commonwealth Propane Co. v. Petrosol Int'l, Inc.
  818 F.2d 522· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the risk of loss for propane stored in a bailee's facility passed to the buyer (Petrosol) when the seller (Cal Gas) tendered delivery with a written direction to the bailee, and the buyer accepted by reselling the goods. The court also found that the risk of l
• Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States v. Okey
  812 F.2d 906· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-04 ·cited 6×
  A common law negligence claim for payment on an unauthorized indorsement is displaced by the Uniform Commercial Code's conversion claim under S.C. Code § 36-3-419.
• Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc. v. Jed Bandes
  510 So. 2d 315· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-02-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the June 9 order confirming an arbitration award was final, and subsequent orders did not extend the time to appeal that order.
• Falcon Constr. Co. v. Econ. Forms Corp.
  805 F.2d 1229· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the district court's adoption of proposed findings was procedurally questionable, the findings were not clearly erroneous. However, the court amended the judgment to correct mathematical errors and remanded the attorneys' fees award for a lack of explana
• Loeffler v. Tisch
  806 F.2d 817· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-08 ·cited 6×
  The court holds that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded to prevailing plaintiffs in Title VII actions against the United States Postal Service.
• Underwriters AT LaCONCORDE v. Airtech Servs., Inc.
  493 So. 2d 428· Fla.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court of appeal erred in its treatment of both the prejudgment interest issue and Airtech Service's appeal regarding the negligence per se instruction.
• United States v. Bank OF Celina
  823 F.2d 911· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 6×
  Post-judgment interest on tax liabilities should be calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, not 26 U.S.C. § 6621, and accrues from the original judgment date until the funds are deposited into the Treasury account.
• Parks v. United States
  784 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 6×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar the United States from impleading a state in admiralty, and the United States can recover indemnity from the Academy based on implied contractual warranty of workmanlike service under federal maritime law.
• First Am. Bank & Tr. v. Windjammer Time Sharing Resort, Inc.
  483 So. 2d 732· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-01-15 ·cited 6×
  First American Bank loaned $1.9 million to Windjammer at floating rates to finance hotel conversion. After full repayment, Windjammer sued for double damages claiming usurious interest rates. The court held that federal law preempts state usury limits, but affirmed usury findings