Pro Rata Distribution

102 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. United States Steel Corp.
  520 F.2d 1043· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-08 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying back pay to the 'new' Ford class, as controlling precedent requires a bifurcated approach and resolves uncertainties against the discriminating employer.
• State v. Doyle E. Carlton
  103 Fla. 810· Fla.· 1931-12-09 ·cited 96×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that bond holders seeking mandamus relief against the State Board of Administration cannot compel preferential payment of their bonds when funds are insufficient to pay all bonds of equal dignity. Although mandamus normally compels payment from tax-
• Dunscombe v. Smith
  139 Fla. 497· Fla.· 1939-07-25 ·cited 49×
  This is the second appeal in a class action suit by depositors of the failed Stuart Bank & Trust Company seeking to recover additional assets beyond those distributed under a prior stipulation and decree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding tha
• Moran v. State
  111 Fla. 429· Fla.· 1933-07-14 ·cited 40×
  The court considered whether a bondholder of a drainage district could use mandamus to be paid in full before other bondholders when district funds were insufficient to cover all debts. The court held that mandamus was inappropriate in this situation because the drainage district
• Bradbury v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  298 F.2d 111· 1st Cir.· 1962-01-15 ·cited 34×
  A stock redemption by a corporation is essentially equivalent to a dividend if it results in no meaningful change in the shareholder's proportionate interest in the corporation, even if a business purpose for the redemption exists.
• Boyle v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  187 F.2d 557· 3d Cir.· 1951-02-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the distribution received by the taxpayer for his stock was essentially equivalent to a taxable dividend under Section 115(g) of the Internal Revenue Code.
• In re Columbia Ribbon Co. Appeal of Winne
  117 F.2d 999· 3d Cir.· 1941-02-05 ·cited 34×
  When a Chapter X reorganization fails and is followed by liquidation, all administration expenses, including those from both the reorganization and liquidation phases, must be treated as on a parity and paid pro rata from available funds.
• Pitre v. W. Elec. Co., Inc.
  843 F.2d 1262· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that evidence of past discrimination is probative of current discriminatory intent and that statistical evidence, even if not statistically significant to social scientists, can be relevant in Title VII cases when considered with other evidence.
• Coleman A. Young v. Klutznick
  652 F.2d 617· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claimed injury was hypothetical and not yet cognizable, and the case was not ripe for adjudication as the state legislature had not yet acted.
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Snite (two cases)
  177 F.2d 819· 7th Cir.· 1949-11-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the purchase of stock by a corporation from its principal stockholders, where the stock was placed in treasury and not cancelled, did not constitute a distribution essentially equivalent to a taxable dividend under Section 115(g) of the Internal Revenue Code.
• City of Kissimmee v. State
  121 Fla. 151· Fla.· 1935-10-04 ·cited 23×
  The City of Kissimmee challenged a mandamus ruling requiring it to pay one creditor's bond coupon in full from available tax levy funds, despite the city's claim that the funds should be distributed pro rata among all creditors. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that th
• Prescott H. Rathborne v. Rathborne
  683 F.2d 914· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-25 ·cited 21×
  A shareholder who did not directly purchase or sell securities in a corporate reorganization, and whose proportionate interest in the underlying assets did not fundamentally change, lacks standing to bring a federal securities fraud claim under Rule 10b-5.
• S. Ry. Co. & Morgan Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. United States
  306 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1962-07-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that tax claims are allowable as operational costs of a receivership, not based on statutory priority, and that a creditor's claim for diverted funds is not entitled to preference over tax claims. The court also affirmed the allowance of a fee to counsel who contri
• United Parcel Servs. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carmadella
  432 So. 2d 702· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-06-07 ·cited 16×
  This case concerns whether a workers' compensation carrier is entitled to a pro rata distribution from a settlement obtained by an injured employee against a third-party tortfeasor, when the employee was 100% at fault.
• Isidore Himmel and Estate of Lillian Himmel v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  338 F.2d 815· 2d Cir.· 1964-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the redemption of the taxpayer's preferred stock was not essentially equivalent to a dividend, and thus should be treated as a sale for tax purposes.
• Burchfield v. Bevans
  242 F.2d 239· 10th Cir.· 1957-02-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that where multiple judgment creditors have claims against an insurance policy's limited liability fund, and no judgment creates a lien on the fund under state law, equity dictates a pro rata distribution of the fund among all judgment creditors.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. State Bank OF Virden
  893 F.2d 139· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a setoff based on rescission of a loan participation due to alleged oral misrepresentations by the failed bank is barred by 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e), as such misrepresentations are treated as unwritten agreements that cannot diminish the FDIC's rights.
• Downriver Cmty. Fed. Credit Union v. Penn Square Bank
  879 F.2d 754· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-03 ·cited 14×
  Federal law, specifically the National Bank Act, limits uninsured depositors' recovery from an insolvent bank's assets to their pro rata share, precluding the imposition of a constructive trust for full recovery.
• Hebel v. Ebersole
  543 F.2d 14· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-02 ·cited 14×
  A holder in due course of a check on which payment was stopped has a superior claim to the deposited fund over unsecured claimants, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in severing the interpleader action from other claims.
• Hawkinson v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  235 F.2d 747· 2d Cir.· 1956-07-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the cancellation of indebtedness in a corporate consolidation, which had the effect of a taxable dividend, was taxable as ordinary income under I.R.C. § 112(c)(2).
• Flagler Fin. Corp. & N. Am. Realty Co. v. Therrell
  118 Fla. 596· Fla.· 1934-03-02 ·cited 14×
  This case involves a foreclosure sale of mortgaged property where the Liquidator of a bankrupt trustee bid the highest amount but lacked funds to pay the bid or cover litigation costs. The Florida Supreme Court held that the trustee's bid was unauthorized because it lacked power
• Cooper Transp., Inc. v. Mincey
  459 So. 2d 339· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-10-23 ·cited 13×
  A workers' compensation carrier is entitled to recover 100 percent of compensation and medical benefits paid and to be paid from a third-party settlement, reduced only to the extent that the injured employee demonstrates he did not recover full damages due to his own comparative
• Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Ctr., Inc.
  709 F.2d 807· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the union engaged in discrimination, the district court's remedies for back pay, front pay, and retroactive seniority were excessive and did not accurately recreate pre-discrimination conditions, requiring modification.
• JOE Hatton, Inc. v. Doyle Conner
  247 So. 2d 782· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-04-02 ·cited 12×
  The Commissioner of Agriculture sought to use interpleader to distribute funds collected under a now-unconstitutional statute. The court upheld interpleader as the proper method to resolve competing claims on the fund by first handlers, some of whom demanded greater recovery than
• In re Fid. Tube Corp.
  278 F.2d 776· 3d Cir.· 1960-05-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trustee in bankruptcy does not hold the status of a "judgment creditor" under Section 3672 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and that the United States' tax liens are valid against the trustee.
• Matter of the Petition of Lake Tankers Corp. for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liab.
  232 F.2d 573· 2d Cir.· 1956-04-13 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the case involves a single limitation proceeding for the owner's indivisible liability on a single indivisible claim, rather than two separate limitation proceedings.
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sullivan
  210 F.2d 607· 5th Cir.· 1954-02-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the objective results of a stock redemption, rather than the subjective motives of the parties, determine if it is essentially equivalent to a taxable dividend.
• Mayfield v. First Nat. Bank of Chattanooga
  137 F.2d 1013· 6th Cir.· 1943-08-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that appellants were barred by the doctrine of election from pursuing individual claims for breach of trust after accepting a pro rata share of a class action settlement, as accepting the settlement affirmed the contract and precluded claims that repudiated it.
• Hendrie v. Lowmaster
  152 F.2d 83· 6th Cir.· 1945-11-12 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in construing the reorganization order to mean equal distribution of unclaimed stock to all shareholders.
• Sholtz v. State
  121 Fla. 477· Fla.· 1935-11-04 ·cited 11×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a writ of mandamus requiring the State Board of Administration to pay past-due interest coupons on Hernando County bonds from tax funds levied for that purpose. The court held that because a prior mandamus writ had required the county to levy ta
• Anderson v. Stephens
  875 F.2d 76· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that checks deposited after a freeze order was issued should be returned to the originating investors, not included in a pro rata distribution to all investors.
• Acemla v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal
  763 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-30 ·cited 10×
  The Copyright Royalty Tribunal's distribution of the disputed ten percent of the 1982 jukebox royalty fund was not in accordance with law because it improperly relied on an agreement after the performing rights societies failed to reach a consensus, instead of requiring proof of
• Blue Cross OF Fla., Inc. v. O'Donnell
  230 So. 2d 706· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-01-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the appellee's status as a subscriber or third-party beneficiary, and that the subrogation provision in the insurance contract was not violative of public policy.
• Weed v. Penelope L. Standley
  12 Fla. 166· Fla.· 1867-01-01 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a Circuit Court decision that had granted a landlord priority payment of rent from an insolvent tenant's estate. The Court held that without proper recording or delivery of the written lease agreement, no valid lien was created, and the landlord
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Torchia
  922 F.3d 1307· 11th Cir.· 2019-04-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's summary proceedings in the receivership did not afford the appellants due process by denying them a meaningful opportunity to present their claims and defenses.
• Civil Aeronautics Bd. v. Tour Travel Enters., Inc.
  605 F.2d 998· 7th Cir.· 1979-09-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that absent claimants must be notified and given an opportunity to be heard before priorities for disbursing funds from an escrow account are established.
• Mandell Shimberg, Jr. v. United States
  577 F.2d 283· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the 'boot' received in a corporate reorganization, when distributed pro rata, has the effect of a dividend and is taxable as ordinary income, rejecting the 'meaningful reduction' test used by the lower court.
• In re Del. Hosiery Mills, Inc.
  202 F.2d 951· 3d Cir.· 1953-04-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that loans made to receivers under general court authority, without express provision for priority, do not automatically gain priority over other administration expenses under Section 64(a) of the Bankruptcy Act.
• In re Searles
  166 F.2d 475· 2d Cir.· 1948-02-18 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would have remanded the case to require notice by mail to creditors, finding notice by publication alone insufficient and not justified by the record.
• Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md.
  162 F.2d 264· 7th Cir.· 1947-05-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the suretyship bond's liability was continuous and limited to its face amount, not cumulative, and that Pinkerton, despite having a prior judgment, was a proper party to the interpleader and should share the bond proceeds ratably with other claimants.
• David Metzger Tr. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  693 F.2d 459· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that family discord does not override the mandatory application of Internal Revenue Code attribution rules, and trusts cannot waive these rules under the pre-TEFRA statutory exception for individuals.
• Sertic v. Cuyahoga
  459 F.2d 579· 6th Cir.· 1972-05-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred by issuing orders for fund distribution and attorney fees without providing notice to the class members and that the appellants had standing to appeal.
• Underwood v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  155 F.2d 372· 10th Cir.· 1946-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that all claimants, except for the secured creditor Dye, should share the remaining fund pro rata, as their equitable liens arose simultaneously upon the creation of the fund in Oklahoma.
• May Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  123 F.2d 858· 4th Cir.· 1941-06-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the purchase of preference stock in the open market does not qualify for a dividends paid credit under Section 26(c)(2) as a debt discharge, nor under Section 27(f) as a liquidation distribution due to the lack of pro rata distribution required by Section 27(g
• Marden v. The Elks Club
  138 Fla. 707· Fla.· 1939-06-23 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a foreclosure decree that gave priority to holders of original 8% bonds over holders of refunding 6% bonds. The court held that bondholders who exchanged their original bonds for refunding bonds secured by a supplemental deed of trust on the sam
• SEA Quest Int'l, Inc. v. Trident Shipworks, Inc.
  958 So. 2d 1115· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-06-22 ·cited 5×
  Sea Quest International sued Trident Shipworks for breach of a yacht construction contract after Trident filed bankruptcy. The court addressed whether prior bankruptcy and federal court proceedings precluded relitigation of liability and damages in state court, ultimately affirmi
• Int'l Cmty. Corporation-Tampa & the Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Davis Water & Waste Indus., Inc.
  455 So. 2d 1164· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-09-12 ·cited 5×
  ICC-T and its surety, The Insurance Company of Florida, appealed a summary judgment for $4,736.89 in a mechanic's lien foreclosure action. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's use of pro rata distribution under Florida Statutes § 713.06(4)(b) for subdivision liens, but
• McDonald v. Bogue
  14 Fla. 363· Fla.· 1874-01-01 ·cited 5×
  A Florida probate dispute in which the sole heir of an insolvent estate sought to recover remaining assets from the administrator, claiming creditor claims were barred by statute of limitations. The court reversed, holding that creditors who timely presented claims within the sta
• In re Goldberg v. NEW Jersey Lawyers' Fund FOR Client Prot. & Chicago Title Ins. Co. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
  932 F.2d 273· 3d Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Client Protection Fund should not be the sole recipient of the attorney's trust account proceeds, and that Chicago Title is also an appropriate recipient.
• Agway, Inc. v. The United States
  524 F.2d 1194· Ct. Cl.· 1975-10-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's purchase of preferred stock in United Cooperative constituted a substantial investment intent, not merely a purchase to secure a source of supply.