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

• Wessel v. Buhler
  437 F.2d 279· 9th Cir.· 1971-01-22 ·cited 52×
  The court held that an accountant is not liable under Rule 10b-5 for financial statements not disseminated to the public or for failing to disclose internal financial issues. The court also found the trial court erred in its method of calculating damages by improperly aggregating
• Alliant TAX Credit 31, Inc v. Murphy
  924 F.3d 1134· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-15 ·cited 51×
  Alliant Tax Credit entities obtained a judgment against Vincent Murphy for breach of a partnership contract in Kentucky, but found him judgment-proof and sued under Georgia's fraudulent-transfer statute to recover assets Murphy had transferred to his ex-wife Marilyn as part of th
• Broward Cnty. v. Finlayson
  555 So. 2d 1211· Fla.· 1990-01-25 ·cited 51×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Broward County must pay prejudgment interest to emergency medical technicians on back overtime wages owed under a contract, but that interest should accrue only from the date the first claim was made (June 17, 1980) rather than from when the wa
• Lucas v. United States
  807 F.2d 414· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the Texas statutory cap on nonmedical damages in medical malpractice actions applies to federally operated hospitals under the Federal Tort Claims Act and that the cap does not violate the federal Constitution. The court certified the question of the cap's con
• Paper Converting Mach. Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp.
  745 F.2d 11· Fed. Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 51×
  The court held that Magna-Graphics' activities did not constitute direct infringement of Paper Converting's patent because an operable assembly of the patented invention was never made, used, or sold.
• Eclipse Med., Inc. v. Am. Hydro-Surgical Instruments, Inc.
  262 F. Supp. 2d 1334· S.D. Fla.· 1999-01-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that claims for fraudulent inducement based on oral promises contradicting a written contract are barred by the parol evidence rule, Statute of Frauds, and the economic loss doctrine.
• MacDISSI v. Valmont Indus., Inc.
  856 F.2d 1054· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no clear error in its factual findings on the merits of MacDissi's age discrimination claim and no abuse of discretion in its remedial order.
• Cavic v. The Grand Bahama Dev. Co.
  701 F.2d 879· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 50×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of common law fraud and that service of process was validly effected under Florida statute.
• Gator Marine Serv. Towing, Inc. v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & Co.
  651 F.2d 1096· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-29 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the district court's apportionment of comparative fault and denial of McDermott's tort lien, finding no abuse of discretion in the prejudgment interest rate.
• Plantation KEY Developers, Inc. v. Colonial Mortg. Co. OF Ind., Inc.
  589 F.2d 164· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-06 ·cited 50×
  The court held that awarding pre-judgment interest as a matter of law was error because Florida law requires the jury to assess such interest as an element of damages. The court also affirmed the jury's verdict on the breach of contract claim and the directed verdict on the fraud
• United States & Baker Aircraft Sales v. Furumizo
  381 F.2d 965· 9th Cir.· 1967-08-09 ·cited 50×
  The court held that air traffic controllers' negligence in failing to act when they saw a pilot disregard a warning was a proximate cause of the accident, and that damages awarded were not excessive or inadequate.
• S & E Contractors, Inc. v. City OF Tampa
  629 So. 2d 883· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-11-10 ·cited 49×
• State v. Bailey
  603 So. 2d 1384· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-08-28 ·cited 49×
  The court held that a trial court must vacate a judgment awarding prejudgment interest against the state, as such an award is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity.
• Poleto v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  826 F.2d 1270· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-19 ·cited 49×
  Postjudgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 should be calculated from the date of the jury verdict, not the date of judgment entry, to fully compensate the plaintiff for the delay in payment. However, prejudgment interest is not permitted under the FELA due to consistent histori
• Operating Eng'rs Pension Tr. & Operating Eng'rs Health & Welf. Fund v. Beck Eng'g & Surveying Co.
  746 F.2d 557· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-01 ·cited 49×
  A construction industry employer with a single employee under a Section 8(f) pre-hire agreement can repudiate the agreement through conduct sufficient to notify the union and employee of termination, even if not strictly following contract termination notice periods.
• Alkmeon Naviera, S.A. v. M/V "Marina L
  633 F.2d 789· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-18 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the Theokeetor's maneuvering was proper under Rule 16(c) and that the Marina L's maneuvering was improper, affirming the district court's apportionment of fault. However, the court reversed the denial of prejudgment interest, remanding for its determination.
• Solomon v. Warren
  540 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-15 ·cited 49×
  The dissenting judge argues that awards for presumed conscious pain and suffering before death and for lost future accumulations to the decedents' estates are based on speculation and constitute double recovery, contrary to Florida law.
• In re the Complaint of Bankers Tr. Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
  761 F.2d 943· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court erred by prematurely entering a final judgment on limitation of liability, as it failed to make specific factual findings on unresolved issues of negligence and privity related to the anchor watch and the master's actions.
• Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Sunshine Supermarket, Inc.
  753 F.2d 321· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-01 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of non-prosecution for arson was reversible error, and that the trial court's comments on witness fees were also improper, necessitating a new trial.
• Mack v. Newton
  737 F.2d 1343· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 48×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of conspiracy regarding the transfer of 188 Dairyland cows to Dairy Cows, but not for other cattle transfers or the conversion claim. The denial of the usury claim was affirmed.
• Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc.
  740 F.2d 1071· D.C. Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed most of the district court's rulings, adhering to the law of the case doctrine and rejecting arguments based on alleged supervening Supreme Court precedent. Specific modifications were ordered regarding backpay accrual periods and interest.
• Vardaman S. Dunn v. Koehring Co.
  546 F.2d 1193· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that Koehring was liable to Hyde for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, affirming the trial court's finding with modifications to damages. The court reversed the lower court's finding that Koehring was not liable to Dunn, holding Koehring liable for abuse
• Freeport Sulphur Co. v. The S/S Hermosa
  526 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-23 ·cited 48×
  The court held that in-house engineering costs are recoverable damages and that the method for calculating betterment due to extended useful life requires a specific percentage calculation, not simply straight-line depreciation. It also held that damages for early expenditure on
• Rivera v. Rederi A/B Nordstjernan
  456 F.2d 970· 1st Cir.· 1972-03-15 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit contributory negligence to the jury, but erred in the amount of damages awarded to one plaintiff.
• Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp.
  55 So. 3d 567· Fla.· 2010-12-16 ·cited 47×
  The Florida Supreme Court overruled its precedent in McGurn v. Scott, holding that trial courts may reserve jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest in a final judgment without losing the ability to determine that interest post-appeal. This decision prevents the inadvertent wai
• Centex-Rooney Constr. Co., Inc. v. Martin Cnty.
  706 So. 2d 20· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-12-31 ·cited 47×
  Martin County sued its construction manager Centex-Rooney and surety companies for breach of contract and negligence arising from defects in a courthouse complex that became infested with toxic mold, requiring evacuation and extensive remediation. The jury awarded $11.55 million
• Mason v. Reiter
  564 So. 2d 142· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-06-12 ·cited 47×
  In this paternity case involving entertainer Jackie Mason, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed child support and medical expense awards but reversed the attorney's fees award due to an improper contingency fee multiplier applied in a family law proceeding. The cou
• Hernandez v. M/V Rajaan
  841 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-30 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the vessel owner was liable for the longshoreman's injuries due to actual knowledge of a malfunctioning winch and the stevedore's inability to remedy it. Certain damage awards were found excessive and subject to remittitur or a new trial.
• Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Lazara E. Gonzalez
  512 So. 2d 269· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-09-01 ·cited 47×
  GEICO wrongfully withheld $10,000 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits owed to an insured injured in an automobile accident, first claiming confusion over competing claims from the hospital and insured, then continuing to delay payment even after the hospital released its
• Segal v. Gilbert Color Sys., Inc.
  746 F.2d 78· 1st Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 47×
  Prejudgment interest was improperly awarded by the judge after the jury verdict, and attorney fees must be recalculated using the lodestar method, not a percentage of the recovery.
• Payne v. Panama Canal Co.
  607 F.2d 155· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-26 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the 1975 and 1978 amendments to the Back Pay Act and related statutes apply to pending claims, and that prejudgment interest may be awarded at the court's discretion.
• O'Hare v. Gen. Marine Transp. Corp.
  740 F.2d 160· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the employer remained bound by the collective bargaining agreement and was liable for delinquent contributions, interest, and attorney's fees, affirming the district court's decisions.
• Katsaros v. Cody
  744 F.2d 270· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the finding of fiduciary duty breaches under ERISA for the Bancorporation loan and Green loan expenses, but modified the duration of court-appointed manager tenure.
• In re the Complaint of Sabine Towing & Transp. Co., Inc. v. Zapata Ugland Drilling, Inc.
  553 F.2d 489· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that loss of use damages, other expenses, and prejudgment interest were properly awarded in an admiralty case, and the 12% prejudgment interest rate was not an abuse of discretion.
• Delvina E. Lorenzen v. Emps. Ret. Plan OF THE Sperry & Hutchinson Co., Inc.
  896 F.2d 228· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 45×
  A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a Rule 59 motion is nullified and a new notice must be filed.
• W. Pac. Fisheries, Inc. v. SS President Grant
  730 F.2d 1280· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the Major-Minor Fault Rule is abolished and that prejudgment interest should be awarded at a rate reflecting market conditions, specifically the yield on 52-week U.S. Treasury bills.
• Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc.
  726 F.2d 734· Fed. Cir.· 1984-01-24 ·cited 45×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the patent claims are invalid due to anticipation by prior art and obviousness, arguing that the striped effect is an inherent result of known leathering techniques.
• Gunther Graefenhain and Philip Miller v. Pabst Brewing Co.
  870 F.2d 1198· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-07 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding front pay, except for the deduction of pension benefits for Miller, which requires a limited remand. The court found Pabst's offer of reinstatement inadequate and that liquidated damages do not preclude front pay.
• SOO Line R.R. Co. v. Escanaba & Lake Superior R.R. Co.
  840 F.2d 546· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court erred in staying enforcement of the interline balance judgment and that the Soo is entitled to prejudgment interest. The court reversed the stay and remanded for calculation of interest.
• Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy Inc.
  776 F.2d 646· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by using a mathematical approach to disallow hours based on a percentage of equitable relief issues and by using a base figure that did not correspond to the number of hours used in calculations. However, the court affi
• Multiflex, Inc. v. Samuel Moore & Co.
  709 F.2d 980· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the "fact of damage" for its Section 1 conspiracy claim because the alleged damaging event occurred before the conspiracy was formed. The court also found that while an unsuccessful attempt to maintain a monopoly can be a Section
• Jarvis v. Johnson
  668 F.2d 740· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 44×
  Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, which provides for prejudgment interest in tort cases, must be applied in diversity actions brought in federal courts in Pennsylvania because its application is outcome-determinative and serves to prevent forum shopping and inequitable ad
• United Cal. Bank v. THC Fin. Corp.
  557 F.2d 1351· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the put letter and promissory notes were not securities under federal law, and the agreement did not constitute a guaranty under California law, thus THCF breached the contract by refusing to purchase the notes.
• Brennan v. Maxey's Yamaha, Inc.
  513 F.2d 179· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-26 ·cited 44×
• Harris J. Doucet v. Wheless Drilling Co.
  467 F.2d 336· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a waiver of a jury demand in a Jones Act case could be treated as an election to proceed in admiralty, allowing for discretionary prejudgment interest, and affirmed the lower court's findings on seaman status and contributory negligence.
• Gen. Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Hercules Constr. Co.
  385 F.2d 13· 8th Cir.· 1967-10-24 ·cited 44×
  A surety's liability is joint and several, allowing suit against the surety alone even if the principal is not formally found liable in the same action. The method of calculating damages based on actual extra costs incurred due to the breach is permissible if reasonable.
• Jacques L. LeROY ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Paul LeRoy v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines (Societe Anonyme Belge d'Exploitation de la Navigation Aerienne)
  344 F.2d 266· 2d Cir.· 1965-03-31 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while a substantial recovery was warranted, the case should not be remanded for a recomputation of damages, with a minor adjustment for a mathematical error.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Kramer
  778 F. Supp. 2d 1320· M.D. Fla.· 2011-04-01 ·cited 43×
  The court held that Baker's statements were inadmissible hearsay and granted Kramer's motion to exclude them. The court also sustained Kramer's objection to the magistrate judge's order denying his Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the Commission.
• Montage Grp., Ltd. v. Athle-Tech Computer Sys., Inc.
  889 So. 2d 180· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-12-15 ·cited 43×
  Montage Group and Digital Editing Services appeal a $14.1 million judgment for breach of contract, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment arising from their sale of software code that Athle-Tech claimed a contractual right to jointly own and license. The appellate court aff
• ROY v. Star Chopper Co., Inc.
  584 F.2d 1124· 1st Cir.· 1978-10-03 ·cited 43×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings on choice of law, jury instructions, and evidentiary matters, finding no reversible error in the application of Rhode Island strict liability law or the handling of third-party claims.