Prejudgment Interest

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

• Granger Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. Pellar
  668 So. 2d 345· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-02-28 ·cited 2×
• Brink Distribs., Inc. v. J. Evans Assocs., Inc.
  667 So. 2d 926· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-02-09 ·cited 2×
  Brereton purchased a distributorship from Evans for $591,000, executing a promissory note for $225,868.22. When Evans sued for non-payment, Brereton counterclaimed for breach of contract, claiming the distributorship's value was inflated. The trial court awarded Brereton $100,000
• Gilliard v. Stephen R. Wright for Gilliard Grove Servs., Inc.
  667 So. 2d 815· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-12-15 ·cited 2×
  H. David Gilliard, Jr. appeals a final judgment awarding the receiver of his companies over $3.2 million in damages, attorney's fees, and interest. The court affirmed the underlying damages award but reversed the trial court's grant of prejudgment interest on statutory treble dam
• Arnaldo Pelaez v. Persons
  664 So. 2d 1022· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, reviewed an order awarding over $28,000 in attorneys' fees. The court held that the trial court erred in awarding fees beyond $7,200, reversing the excessive portion of the award.
• Peter M. de Manio & de Manio & Young, P.A. v. Burns
  642 So. 2d 807· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-09-16 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of law on out-of-pocket pecuniary losses when damages are liquidated.
• Miller Cooper v. Gibson Grp., Ltd.
  640 So. 2d 156· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that post-judgment interest cannot be awarded on the amount of prejudgment interest.
• Venn v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  169 B.R. 735· N.D. Fla.· 1994-05-09 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff is not entitled to prejudgment interest on a damages award in a bad faith claim under Florida law unless the plaintiff has suffered an actual, out-of-pocket pecuniary loss prior to judgment.
• Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  851 F. Supp. 436· M.D. Fla.· 1994-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while plaintiffs' delay in requesting attorneys' fees did not prejudice the defendants, prejudgment interest for that delay is not warranted. The court awarded fees for services rendered from 1958-1971 and 1972-1991, with specific hourly rates and hours determ
• Interamerican Eng'rs & Constructors Corp. v. Palm Beach Cnty. Hous. Auth.
  629 So. 2d 879· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-11-10 ·cited 2×
  A contractor sued a county housing authority for breach of contract arising from construction delays and cost overruns on a HUD project. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the housing authority based on sovereign immunity, but the appellate court reversed, holding tha
• The Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty. v. State
  629 So. 2d 189· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-11-09 ·cited 2×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's determination that the state was not liable for prejudgment interest on hospital expenses owed under an insurance contract. The court held that sovereign immunity does not bar prejudgment interest in successful contr
• Ramos v. Biomet, Inc.
  828 F. Supp. 1570· S.D. Fla.· 1993-08-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff's patent both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, awarding significant damages.
• ACR Elecs., Inc. v. Switlik Parachute Co., Inc.
  624 So. 2d 1144· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-07-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the seller was entitled to a contract price increase credit but that prejudgment interest should not have been awarded from the date of wrongful termination, only from when the buyer actually incurred damages.
• Univ. OF Miami v. All-Pro Athletic Surfaces, Inc.
  619 So. 2d 1034· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to enter a judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for the indivisible economic injury suffered by the University.
• Marian M. and Robert C. Reid v. Dogulas S. Crucet and Michael H. Sheridan
  615 So. 2d 858· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-03-22 ·cited 2×
• Coca-Cola Bottling Co. OF Elizabethtown, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Co.
  988 F.2d 386· 3d Cir.· 1993-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Consent Decrees and resulting contracts obligated the Company to supply only syrup sweetened with a specific amount of cane or beet sugar, not high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). However, the court also found that the HFCS syrup was materially comparable, vac
• In re Montgomery v. Third Nat'l Bank IN Nashville
  983 F.2d 1389· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that transfers of funds obtained through check kiting at other banks, commingled and used to pay off antecedent debts at the defendant bank, constituted voidable preferences because the debtor exercised sufficient control over the funds to establish a property inte
• Lone Mountain Prod. Co. v. Natural GAS Pipeline Co. OF Am.
  984 F.2d 1551· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the succession agreements constituted valid assignments of the gas purchase contracts, and that Natural Gas waived its right to demand strict compliance with formal assignment procedures. The court also affirmed the trial court's damage calculations based on e
• United States v. Mexico Feed & Seed Co., Inc.
  980 F.2d 478· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-16 ·cited 2×
  Corporate successors are covered persons under CERCLA, but Moreco is not liable as a successor under the 'substantial continuity' theory because it lacked notice and the transaction was arm's length. Attorney fees are recoverable as response costs in contribution actions.
• Latham Seed Co. v. Nickerson Am. Plant Breeders, Inc.
  978 F.2d 1493· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's findings of fraud and breach of oral contract were supported by evidence, and that the punitive damages awards did not violate due process. The court also held that prejudgment interest was recoverable on exemplary damages under Michigan law.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Measurement & Control Co., Inc.
  978 F.2d 334· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Dybel family and their related businesses are personally liable for the back pay obligations of the defunct corporation, and that the Board's finding of a single employer was supported by substantial evidence.
• Anixter v. Home-Stake Prod. Co.
  977 F.2d 1549· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that individual investor claims were time-barred and dismissed, but remanded for further findings on the statute of limitations and prejudgment interest for class action claims, affirming the denial of tax benefit offsets.
• Magee v. United States Lines, Inc.
  976 F.2d 821· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that prejudgment interest should be awarded on the maritime claim when both maritime and Jones Act claims result in a single, unapportioned damages award, and that postjudgment interest runs from the actual date of judgment entry.
• United States v. Benton
  975 F.2d 511· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge held that the United States lacked standing to sue the State of Missouri for taxes paid by Olin, as the contract did not obligate reimbursement for taxes Olin was exempt from paying.
• Martin v. THE Refrigeration Sch., Inc.
  968 F.2d 3· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 2×
  A trade school providing specialized occupational training is not a retail establishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but the denial of pre-judgment interest on back wages was an abuse of discretion.
• Atchison v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
  963 F.2d 746· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-10 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's awards for medical expenses and attorney fees, but abstained from deciding the pre-judgment interest rate pending a Texas Supreme Court decision.
• Woodbridge Place Apts. v. Wash. Square Cap.
  965 F.2d 1429· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the standby deposit provision in the loan commitment was ambiguous and, construing it against the drafters under Indiana law, it constituted an unenforceable penalty rather than enforceable consideration or liquidated damages.
• Frumkin v. Mayo Clinic
  965 F.2d 620· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a new trial on all eye care damages, and that the denial of the motion to dismiss based on witness threats was not an abuse of discretion. The court also held that prejudgment interest should be awarded on disability and di
• Allen & O'Hara v. Barrett Wrecking
  964 F.2d 694· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-21 ·cited 2×
  Prejudgment interest on contract damages should be awarded from the date of breach, not from the date damages were precisely itemized, and interest should be simple, not compounded.
• Johnson v. Cont'l Airlines Corp.
  964 F.2d 1059· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-21 ·cited 2×
  In a diversity case where liability is governed by one state's law and compensatory damages by another's, prejudgment interest, as an integral element of compensatory damages, is governed by the law chosen for compensatory damages, not subject to independent choice of law analysi
• Midamerica Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
  962 F.2d 1470· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an attorneys' fees award under the Oklahoma Securities Act is not duplicative of compensatory damages awarded on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, and postjudgment interest on attorneys' fees accrues from the date the fees are quantified, not the date of the m
• Ginett v. Computer Task Grp., Inc.
  962 F.2d 1085· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the severance pay claim for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b).
• The United States v. Reul
  959 F.2d 1572· Fed. Cir.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the statute of limitations did not bar the government's suit for breach of the surety bonds, but vacated and remanded the award of prejudgment interest against the surety, finding it improperly calculated from a date prior to demand on the surety.
• Seal v. Knorpp
  957 F.2d 1230· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Seal was not terminated for purposes of the Trust Agreement, as the agreement requires an actual cessation of employment and does not recognize 'non-actual termination' provisions from a separate employment contract. The court affirmed the denial of the seismi
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Tex. Real Est. Counselors, Inc.
  955 F.2d 261· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's finding of negligence in accepting a limited scope appraisal assignment was not supported by the record, requiring a remand for reapportionment of fault. The court affirmed the district court's decisions regarding damages and prejudgment i
• State v. Fam. Bank OF Hallandale as successor-in-interest to Seminole Nat'l Bank
  593 So. 2d 581· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-02-05 ·cited 2×
  Florida appeals a summary judgment holding that state warrants issued before the effective date of chapter 91-216 are negotiable instruments under the Uniform Commercial Code. The court affirmed, holding that state warrants are negotiable unless clearly marked otherwise, and that
• Coal Res., Inc. v. Gulf & W. Indus., Inc.
  954 F.2d 1263· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while most of the expert testimony was admissible under the law of the case doctrine due to changed circumstances, the expert was not qualified to testify on the cost of a coal preparation plant, warranting a remittitur.
• United States for the Use & Benefit of Lochridge-Priest, Inc. v. Con-Real Support Grp., Inc.
  950 F.2d 284· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that delay expenses are recoverable against a Miller Act surety, but prejudgment interest calculation must be based on when amounts were 'due and payable' under the subcontract, not solely on the Miller Act's 90-day period.
• Cotton Bros. Baking Co., Inc. v. Indus. Risk Insurers
  951 F.2d 54· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that payments made under a business interruption policy for mitigation expenses do not automatically credit against damages awarded for actual loss sustained, and statutory penalties were correctly assessed on the full awarded amount.
• Abbott Labs. v. Brennan
  952 F.2d 1346· Fed. Cir.· 1991-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of Rule 11 sanctions, the exclusion of certain evidence and expert testimony, and the dismissal of the antitrust counterclaim. It also affirmed the jury's verdict on tortious interference and abuse of process, subject to further review of specific da
• Bellucci v. Moore
  585 So. 2d 490· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-09-12 ·cited 2×
  Bellucci appealed a trial court decision allowing the Moores to retain his $10,000 deposit when he refused to close on the purchase of their oceanfront property after storm damage. The court affirmed, holding that repair costs were less than 3% of the purchase price under the con
• Mode, Inc. v. Hardrives Co.
  583 So. 2d 819· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-08-21 ·cited 2×
• Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp.
  942 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the revival statute applies even if later asbestos exposure did not cause the injury, as long as some exposure occurred within three years of death.
• Enron Corp. v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp.
  940 F.2d 307· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurer's duty to defend is determined by the factual allegations in the complaint and reversed the district court's judgment for failing to examine these allegations regarding a potentially uncovered claim.
• In re the Dep't OF Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litig. Oryx Energy Co. (Successor to Sun Oil Co. (Delaware)) v. United States Dep't OF Energy
  944 F.2d 918· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1991-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the DOE was not estopped from seeking interest on overcharges and that DOE policy rates were the appropriate rates for calculating both prejudgment and post-judgment interest on deficiencies.
• Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.
  939 F.2d 1540· Fed. Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents or in determining that the infringement was not willful, but did err in reducing the damages award by 20% based on market share.
• Lund v. Albrecht
  936 F.2d 459· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the partnership dissolution was not finalized until June 4, 1984, and Albrecht breached his fiduciary duty by failing to disclose offers for partnership property. The court also held that Albrecht waived claims regarding competing property interests in the Jun
• Reopell v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  936 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-18 ·cited 2×
  States can be charged prejudgment interest on VRRA awards, as the Act abrogates Eleventh Amendment immunity and prejudgment interest is implied to make the veteran whole.
• United States for the Use of Yonker Constr. Co. v. W. Contracting Corp.
  935 F.2d 936· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that prejudgment interest was improperly awarded because the claims were unliquidated under Nebraska law, but affirmed the jury's findings on notice, damages, and bad faith for attorneys' fees.
• DELTA Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Appco Paper & Plastics Corp.
  931 F.2d 5· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a negotiated rate does not justify deviation from the filed tariff schedule, and undercharges are collectible without allowing defenses not timely raised.
• In re Chattanooga Wholesale Antiques, Inc. v. Rossville Bank
  930 F.2d 458· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that post-confirmation payments made under a confirmed Chapter 11 plan are not recoverable by a Chapter 7 trustee, but pre-petition payments and a specific post-petition, pre-confirmation payment are recoverable as preferential or unauthorized transfers.