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

• Aubin v. Fudala
  782 F.2d 287· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 22×
  A plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on a state law negligence claim from the date suit is filed, and attorney fees under § 1988 should be awarded based on the practical extent of success, not solely on the ratio of damages awarded on civil rights claims to total damag
• Twin Disc v. BIG BUD Tractor, Inc.
  772 F.2d 1329· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-05 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that tort claims for economic loss were barred and that a disclaimer of implied warranties was validly incorporated into the contract.
• Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Raynal Pearson
  769 F.2d 1471· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Firestone could not dispute the existence of the agreement based on the Dunn and Slutz letters due to failure to object to jury instructions, and that the Pearsons failed to prove damages with reasonable certainty under Ohio law, requiring a new trial on damag
• Royster Co. v. Union Carbide Corp.
  737 F.2d 941· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Union Carbide breached its contract by failing to provide necessary information and that the trial court correctly calculated damages, including lost profits and prejudgment interest on liquidated damages.
• Diversified Commercial Developers, Inc. v. Formrite, Inc.
  450 So. 2d 533· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-04-04 ·cited 22×
  Diversified Commercial Developers and related defendants appealed a judgment for breach of contract, equitable lien, and prejudgment interest. The Fourth District affirmed the equitable lien and prejudgment interest award but reversed and remanded the damages judgment because the
• Olsen v. Shell OIL Co.
  708 F.2d 976· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act does not limit an insurer's recovery from a third party to the amount of the injured party's direct tort recovery, and that state law on inflation and prejudgment interest applies in OCSLA actions based o
• Jacquelyn Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
  697 F.2d 810· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the employer unlawfully denied the plaintiff a promotion to material control analyst due to sex discrimination, but affirmed the denial of promotion to supervisor. Back pay and costs were adjusted, and attorneys' fees were remanded for recalculation.
• Holly v. Chasen
  639 F.2d 795· D.C. Cir.· 1981-01-07 ·cited 22×
  28 U.S.C. § 1961 does not authorize the taxation of interest upon a judgment against the United States for attorneys' fees, as sovereign immunity requires an express waiver.
• Fiedler v. The McKEA Corp.
  605 F.2d 542· 10th Cir.· 1979-09-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict for fraud and breach of contract, and that the damages award was not improper.
• LEE v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
  592 F.2d 39· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-03 ·cited 22×
  The district court erred in using Rule 60(a) to amend a judgment to add prejudgment interest, as this rule applies only to clerical mistakes, not substantive legal errors.
• Casto v. The Arkansas-Louisiana GAS Co.
  562 F.2d 622· 10th Cir.· 1977-09-20 ·cited 22×
  Prejudgment interest is allowable on personal injury damages under Oklahoma law, but not on exemplary damages, as exemplary damages are punitive and not compensatory for personal injury.
• Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Tex. E. Transmission Corp.
  551 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that demurrage charges, being partly compensatory, should draw prejudgment interest to ensure the carrier is made whole.
• Wilburn M. Britt v. Corporacion Peruana de Vapores & Vox S.S. Co.
  506 F.2d 927· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment, except for a remand to correct the award of past medical expenses.
• Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Lynn
  503 F.2d 636· 6th Cir.· 1974-10-02 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding coverage under the reinsurance contract based on an alternative definition of 'riots or civil disorders'.
• Esso Int'l, Inc. v. The SS Captain John
  443 F.2d 1144· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-26 ·cited 22×
  A prohibition-against-liens clause in a preferred ship mortgage does not preclude the owner or authorized agent from creating valid maritime liens subordinate to the mortgage. The Bankruptcy Act preserves the liability of co-debtors.
• Arkla Exploration Co. v. Boren
  411 F.2d 879· 8th Cir.· 1969-06-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding 'practically impenetrable substance' and anticipatory breach were not erroneous or prejudicial, and that the denial of prejudgment interest was proper.
• United States v. Hunsucker
  314 F.2d 98· 9th Cir.· 1962-12-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government's negligent acts in diverting flood waters and maintaining sewage ponds occurred at the operational level, thus not falling under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Morse Boulger Destructor Co. v. Camden Fibre Mills, Inc.
  239 F.2d 382· 3d Cir.· 1956-12-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a district court errs in amending a judgment to include pre-judgment interest when the original judgment was entered pursuant to a binding stipulation of the parties that specified the exact amount.
• Dyker BLDG. Co., Inc. v. United States
  182 F.2d 85· D.C. Cir.· 1950-03-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the special master's findings, adopted by the trial court, were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment. The court also found the division of costs and the allowance of prejudgment interest to be permissible.
• Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. v. LAW Offs. OF E. Clay Parker
  160 So. 3d 955· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-04-17 ·cited 21×
  Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., an appellate law firm, appealed a trial court judgment that denied it a contingency fee under a Trial Support Agreement with three trial law firms. The dispute centered on whether the word "settled" in the fee contract meant a voluntary settlement a
• AIR Ambulance Prof'ls, Inc. v. Thin AIR
  809 So. 2d 28· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-01-30 ·cited 21×
  Two former business partners engaged in a dispute over aircraft charter payments and management. The court affirmed the jury's liability findings but reversed punitive damages awards and certain prejudgment interest awards, finding insufficient evidence of the gross and flagrant
• Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot
  677 So. 2d 1378· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-08-20 ·cited 21×
  The trial court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest because the damages awarded reflected a loss to a vested property right that was ascertainable at a specific time.
• Dowie v. Dowie
  668 So. 2d 290· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-02-20 ·cited 21×
  The court held that summary judgment was entered prematurely because disputed issues of material fact remained regarding the effect of prior eminent domain proceedings and boundary acquiescence.
• Golden v. Lewis
  647 So. 2d 979· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-12-14 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the father failed to prove the requisite element of prejudice to support the doctrine of laches, thus reversing the denial of retroactive child support.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp., Inc. v. Shuler Bros., Inc.
  590 So. 2d 986· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-12-03 ·cited 21×
  Westinghouse Electric Corporation appealed a jury verdict awarding civil theft damages to Shuler Brothers, challenging whether Shuler proved felonious intent by clear and convincing evidence. The court reversed the civil theft judgment, holding that the evidence was ambiguous rat
• Foley v. City OF Lowell
  948 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1991-10-23 ·cited 21×
  The court held that evidence of subsequent police misconduct is admissible to prove a prior municipal policy of indifference, and that prejudgment interest should run until the date of final judgment.
• Phillips v. Parrish
  585 So. 2d 1038· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-08-27 ·cited 21×
  In this automobile negligence case, Phillips appeals a jury verdict finding him 80% at fault and awards to Parrish of $2,520 plus prejudgment interest. The court affirms the award of prejudgment interest, reasoning that it is merely another element of damages that must be include
• Lewis v. Kendrick
  944 F.2d 949· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 21×
  An unreasonably high fee demand by a plaintiff's attorney does not automatically forfeit the plaintiff's right to any fee award.
• Northbrook Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co.
  924 F.2d 633· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-04 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court's award of costs for a computerized document database was not an abuse of discretion and should not have been vacated.
• Whitfield v. Lindemann
  853 F.2d 1298· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that while Klepak was jointly liable with the trustee for breach of fiduciary duty, the trustee was not entitled to indemnification from Klepak. The court also vacated awards for operating losses and remanded for recalculation of damages based on available assets.
• Sellers v. Delgado Cmty. Coll. & State of La.
  839 F.2d 1132· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a Title VII claimant's duty to mitigate damages does not require them to remain in a non-comparable position, and that the magistrate erred in tolling back pay based on resignations from such positions.
• Cavic v. Pioneer Astro Indus., Inc.
  825 F.2d 1421· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-16 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of commissions and interest, finding that the "purchase agreements" were long-term requirements contracts and that Cavic, as an independent contractor, was not entitled to statutory penalties or fees.
• Stern v. Shouldice
  706 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-15 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed. It affirmed the award of nominal damages, costs, and attorney's fees but reversed the award of back pay and prejudgment interest against the individual defendants.
• LEE v. Wells Fargo Armored Servs. & Travelers Ins. Co.
  707 So. 2d 700· Fla.· 1998-02-12 ·cited 20×
  Prejudgment interest on attorney's fees in workers' compensation cases does not accrue until the amount of the fee has been approved by the judge of compensation claims.
• Stoler v. Anne B. Stoler
  679 So. 2d 837· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-09-06 ·cited 20×
  In this family law appeal, the husband challenges a judgment requiring him to pay all of the wife's attorney's fees and costs in a divorce proceeding. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that while the amount of fees was not an abuse of discretion, order
• Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc.
  883 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury instructions on damages were flawed, requiring a new trial on the amount of damages, but affirmed the finding of liability.
• In re P & E Boat Rentals, Inc. v. Ennia Gen. Ins. Co.
  872 F.2d 642· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a time charterer can be liable for its own negligence, not just for unseaworthiness or crew negligence. It also held that punitive damages against a principal for an agent's conduct require authorization, ratification, or reckless hiring, aligning with a more
• Chaparral Res., Inc. v. Monsanto Co.
  849 F.2d 1286· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in limiting damages to data delivered and in awarding expert witness fees exceeding federal statutory limits.
• State OF Cal. v. Bennett
  833 F.2d 827· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Secretary's interpretation of regulations requiring conferences to be directly related to Title I programs and have a primary purpose of disseminating technical information regarding Title I was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations, a
• Jones v. Benefit Tr. Life Ins. Co.
  800 F.2d 1397· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting judgment n.o.v. on emotional distress damages, and that the jury's award should be reinstated, allowing the plaintiff to amend his prayer for relief.
• Edward Leasing Corp. v. Uhlig & Assocs., Inc.
  785 F.2d 877· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in discovery rulings and no clear error in factual findings, including the allocation of 40% comparative negligence to the plaintiff.
• Mech. Tech. Inc. v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.
  776 F.2d 1085· 2d Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 20×
  A shipper's failure to declare a released value on a bill of lading, when presented with a tariff offering different liability levels, results in the shipment being released at the lowest liability rate specified in the tariff, even without explicit knowledge of the tariff's term
• Young v. Johnston
  475 So. 2d 1309· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-09-25 ·cited 20×
  In this construction contract dispute, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's judgment awarding damages for breach of contract, holding that no enforceable contract existed because Johnston's obligation was conditioned on securing financing and he nev
• Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Dir., Off. OF Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't OF Labor
  766 F.2d 128· 3d Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 20×
  Persons who prevailed on claims filed before January 1, 1982, under the Black Lung Benefits Act are not entitled to prejudgment interest computed from the date of disability onset, but rather from 30 days after the initial determination of liability.
• Kealey Pharmacy & Home Care Servs., Inc. v. Walgreen Co.
  761 F.2d 345· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL) applies to Walgreen's termination of dealership agreements and that the terminations lacked good cause, affirming the damages award but remanding for calculation of pre-judgment interest on Walgreen's counterclaim.
• U.C. Castings Co. v. Knight
  754 F.2d 1363· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was a reasonable basis in the record for the jury's verdict on breach of warranty and fraud, and that the award of interest was proper.
• Byrnes v. DeBOLT Transfer, Inc.
  741 F.2d 620· 3d Cir.· 1984-08-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's contractual obligations to contribute to pension funds applied to all drivers, union and non-union, and that the 1000-hour rule did not excuse contributions. The court remanded for further factual findings on the Neville Island operation and th
• United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Cavanaugh
  732 F.2d 832· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the insurer was liable for the loss because the trawler exceeded navigational limits due to the barratrous act of the charterer, not a breach by the owners, and barratry is a covered peril.
• The Ohio River Co. v. Peavey Co.
  731 F.2d 547· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in setting the prejudgment interest rate based on other cases rather than evidence presented, and that the salvage costs were properly allocated.
• Nat'l Souvenir Ctr., Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc.
  728 F.2d 503· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that antitrust tying claims were barred by the statute of limitations, but a monopoly leasing claim was not. The court also affirmed the award of past due contract payments.