Prime Rate

18 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• LAM, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp. & Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  718 F.2d 1056· Fed. Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 70×
  The court held that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded on the trebled portion of damages, but affirmed the district court's awards for lost profits, reduced profits, projected lost profits, and attorneys' fees.
• Gorenstein Enters., Inc. v. Quality Care-Usa, Inc.
  874 F.2d 431· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-02 ·cited 53×
  The court's essential reasoning on prejudgment interest is sound and does not depart from circuit law.
• Sailboat Apt. Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. & Realty Tr.
  363 So. 2d 564· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-08-15 ·cited 11×
  Sailboat Apartment Corporation challenged a floating-rate loan as usurious when prime-based interest rates spiked to over 15% annually. The court held that Florida's usury statute requires spreading only advances and forbearances over a loan's term, not variable interest charges,
• Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Dart Indus., Inc.
  862 F.2d 1564· Fed. Cir.· 1988-12-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court erred in rejecting the special master's findings on the measure of damages and enhanced damages, as the master's determinations were not clearly erroneous.
• Walters v. First Tenn. Bank
  855 F.2d 267· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the usury claim because the plaintiff failed to prove the bank knowingly charged excessive interest, and affirmed directed verdicts on RICO and fraud claims due to lack of evidence of
• Ackerman v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  930 F.2d 3· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-10 ·cited 4×
  A promissory note requiring interest at a rate determined by reference to a bank's published prime rate is a negotiable instrument under the Texas Uniform Commercial Code.
• Democratic Cent. Comm. OF the Dist. OF Columbia v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n
  842 F.2d 402· D.C. Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the majority opinion erred in its calculation of restitution by extending the period beyond the invalidated rate order and by improperly allocating gains on nondepreciable assets to farepayers.
• In re Holywell Corp. v. Bank OF NEW York
  901 F.2d 931· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the debtors' appeal from the bankruptcy court's determination of the Bank's lien amount was moot because the reorganization plan, which relied on that determination, had been substantially consummated.
• Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Alphonso Jones
  999 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1993-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The interest rate under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) should be the rate the secured creditor would charge for a similar loan at the plan's effective date, reflecting a 'coerced loan' model.
• Marco Island Utils. v. The Pub. Serv. Comm'n
  566 So. 2d 1325· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-08-28 ·cited 2×
  Marco Island Utilities appealed two Public Service Commission orders denying its request for a full rate increase, specifically challenging the Commission's decision to allow only 14.25% interest on $30 million in long-term debt instead of the actual 16.1% cost. The court reverse
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Anthony Marina
  892 F.2d 1522· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that borrowers lacked standing to challenge the FDIC's receivership and that certain testimony regarding an accord and satisfaction was improperly excluded. The court affirmed the denial of a directed verdict on the prime rate issue.
• Chem. Bank v. Norman Geller & Blair Realty
  727 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 2×
  Summary judgment for the bank was inappropriate because there is a factual dispute regarding the amount of the principal's debt, which is necessary to determine the guarantors' liability.
• Finn v. Kent Sec. Servs., Inc.
  1992 WL 96195· S.D. Fla.· 2013-11-06 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a claim for discrimination under Title VII and failed to sufficiently allege an adverse employment action for a retaliation claim, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
• Ewing v. Carnival Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-12-22
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment to include pre-judgment interest, finding that the COVID-19 pandemic delays did not constitute peculiar circumstances justifying denial.
• Lebron v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-09-04
  The court held that prejudgment interest is generally awarded in admiralty cases, but not on future damages awarded as a lump sum, and post-judgment interest is awarded at the statutory rate.
• Partington v. Broyhill Furniture Indus.
  999 F.2d 269· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-19
  The court held that sufficient evidence existed for a rational jury to find age discrimination, and that the awards for back pay, front pay, and attorney's fees were not improper.
• Randolph v. Resolution Tr. Corp. for First S. Sav. Ass'n
  995 F.2d 611· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-19
  The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine bars fraudulent inducement claims against the FDIC, but vacated summary judgment on legal malpractice claims for the Five Investors and the RTC, remanding for further factual determination on the existence of an attorney-client rela