Pro Rata Distribution

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

• Gladney v. Review Comm.
  380 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prior appellate decision, which affirmed a district court's temporary increase in a cotton allotment due to procedural circumstances, did not bind the Review Committee to use that increased allotment as the base for future allotments.
• Aviation Credit Corp. v. Conner AIR Lines, Inc.
  307 F.2d 685· 5th Cir.· 1962-09-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that rentals earned pendente lite and sale proceeds should have been applied pro rata to both the original decree amount and the increased amount awarded after remand, and that payments should first be applied to accrued interest.
• Brosnahan Constr. Co. v. City OF Miami Beach
  121 So. 2d 827· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-07-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a workers' compensation insurance carrier is entitled to subrogation and pro rata distribution from a settlement reached in a third-party tort action, not only from judgments obtained at trial. The court reversed the lower court's denial of the carrier's motio
• N.Y. Stocks, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  164 F.2d 75· 2d Cir.· 1947-11-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that payments made to shareholders upon redemption of their stock in an open-end investment company, which included accumulated earnings, did not constitute 'preferential dividends' and were therefore deductible for surtax credit purposes.
• The State for the Use of Robert Garrett v. Wm. Crawford and Jacob Edge
  23 Fla. 289· Fla.· 1887-01-01 ·cited 4×
  Garrett sued Crawford, an administrator of an insolvent estate, and his surety Edge in state court for a judgment debt. Crawford pleaded that he had received a pro rata distribution order from the County Judge allocating only $330 to Garrett from the insolvent estate, that he ten
• Howard v. Globe Life Ins.
  973 F. Supp. 1412· N.D. Fla.· 1996-12-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not be aggregated to meet the $50,000 amount in controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction, and thus the cases must be remanded to state court.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for First Am. Bank & Tr. v. Levine
  680 So. 2d 536· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-06-26 ·cited 3×
  The FDIC, as receiver for a failed bank, appealed a trial court order awarding debtors pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on a $300,000 unsecured claim. The court affirmed the award of pre-insolvency interest but reversed the award of post-insolvency interest, holding that p
• Otto Schilling v. Harrington
  135 Fla. 466· Fla.· 1938-10-04 ·cited 3×
  Property owners appeal a decree enforcing contractor and materialman liens after they refused to pay a subcontractor who completed work following the general contractor's abandonment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision allowing the subcontractor to recover both a pro r
• In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (biennial Petition)
  167 So. 3d 412· Fla.· 2015-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court considered a biennial petition from The Florida Bar proposing numerous amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. The Court adopted most proposed amendments while rejecting or modifying others, including significant changes to suspension procedu
• Developers OF Northlake, Inc. v. Northlake Equities, Inc.
  944 So. 2d 1014· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-09-07 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reversed the trial court's order enforcing a mediation settlement agreement, agreeing with the appellants that a development fee was not payable until the entire project was sold, not on a pro rata basis as parcels were sold.
• Champaign Nat'l Bank v. SOS Indus., Inc.
  815 So. 2d 725· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-04-26 ·cited 2×
  Champaign National Bank appealed a non-final order approving a secondary assignment of claims in an insolvency proceeding under Florida chapter 727. The assignee for the benefit of creditors (Moecker) assigned SOS's causes of action to a law firm representing only some creditors.
• Fontainebleau Hotel & its workers' Comp. carrier v. Ivory Wilcox
  570 So. 2d 1083· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-12-04 ·cited 2×
  The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded a workers' compensation carrier's pro rata share determination in a third-party settlement. The court held that the carrier was entitled to 16.76% of the net settlement proceeds rather than 5.89%, finding that the trial court erre
• Camp v. Morey (In Re Gov't Sec. Corp.)
  107 B.R. 1012· S.D. Fla.· 1989-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The district court held that the bankruptcy court erred in allowing a late claim because the notice provided by the trustee was adequate under SIPA, and the evidence of non-receipt was insufficient and inadmissible hearsay.
• In the Matter of: Donovan Wire & Iron Co.
  822 F.2d 38· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Bethlehem could amend its proof of claim to substitute the correct guaranties, but the claim amount must be reduced by amounts already recovered from the subsidiary.
• United States v. Benitez
  779 F.2d 135· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision to distribute the interpleader fund pro rata among the defrauded claimants, finding that the result would be the same under either federal or New York law.
• Am. States Ins. Co. & Small Inventories, Inc. v. Genevieve L. Woodard and husband
  433 So. 2d 20· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-06-10 ·cited 2×
• In re United Merchs. & Mfrs., Inc. v. United Merchs. & Mfrs., Inc.
  623 F.2d 804· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Article III, C9 of the Plan of Arrangement mandates that interest earned on reserved funds for late-allowed claims be paid to the claimant, not distributed pro rata to all Class I creditors.
• United States v. Cent. Nat'l Bank OF Cleveland
  429 F.2d 5· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a convicted bank robber cannot claim funds deposited in an interpleader action, even if the funds are not proven to be stolen, when those funds are subject to claims by the robbery victims.
• Commissioner OF Internal Revenue v. Est. of Joseph L. Antrim, Jr.
  395 F.2d 430· 4th Cir.· 1968-04-26 ·cited 2×
  A stock redemption is not essentially equivalent to a dividend if it is substantially disproportionate, and the hypothetical dividend test should consider the total redemption amount, not exclude portions redeemed from shareholders who might qualify for a safe harbor.
• Neff v. The United States
  301 F.2d 330· Ct. Cl.· 1962-04-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a corporate distribution for redeemed shares was essentially equivalent to a dividend.
• The Commack
  S.D. Fla.· 1925-09-30 ·cited 2×
  In a maritime lien dispute over the proceeds from the sale of the schooner Commack, the court held that services and supplies furnished to a vessel after its seizure by marshal do not constitute maritime liens and must be postponed in payment priority behind claims that accrued b
• Cap. Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Chancellor Props., Inc.
  291 So. 2d 35· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-02-12 ·cited 1×
  Capital National Bank appealed a judgment finding it breached a fiduciary duty owed to Bancshares (later assigned to Chancellor Properties) by settling a loan dispute with the Hochmans without distributing Chancellor's proportionate share of collections and by releasing collatera
• Kukorinis v. Walmart, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-28
  Walmart sold weighted goods and bagged citrus at potentially inflated prices compared to advertised in-store prices, and customers who purchased these items filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of state consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment. The court approve
• Gilbert v. BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Servs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-14
  The court deferred ruling on the motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement because the plaintiffs failed to adequately address standing, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements under Rule 23.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Oasis Int'l Grp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-04-18
  The Court held that non-parties filing unauthorized documents lack standing and their filings will be stricken to maintain orderly case administration.
• In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar - Biennial Petition
  Fla.· 2022-03-03
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, including modifications to thirty-one existing rules and one new rule, with changes addressing trust account requirements, inventory lawyer procedures, emergency suspensions, lawyer advertising
• Ira Tr. Fbo Bobbie Ahmed
  Del. Ch.· 2017-12-11
  The Court of Chancery granted defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the reclassification of NRG Yield, Inc. (Yield) shares was a conflicted controller transaction subject to the Kahn v. M&F Worldwide, Corp. (MFW) framework. The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead
• Royal Bahamian Ass'n v. QBE Ins.
  233 F.R.D. 306· S.D. Fla.· 2010-09-03
  The court held that QBE failed to establish the work-product doctrine for documents created before the lawsuit was filed, but that QBE need not produce contracts with its agents or all attorney coverage opinions.
• Orange Cnty. v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc.
  812 So. 2d 475· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-03-08
  A local government's public service tax applies only to the net amount actually charged to telecommunications customers after the application of PSC-ordered refund credits for excess profits, not to the gross pre-discount amount.
• Yeager v. The Summit Grp. OF Cent. Fla., Inc.
  654 So. 2d 189· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-04-13
  Yeager, a commercial landlord, sued Bradshaw and his corporation Summit after Summit breached a lease and dissolved. The court held that Bradshaw, as an insider, received fraudulent transfers when Summit's checks were deposited into his account after the corporation became insolv
• Peoples Westchester Sav. Bank v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  961 F.2d 327· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-07
  The dissenting judge holds that the IOLA account was intended as a special deposit, and the lower court's decision to treat it as such should be affirmed.
• Cent. Ill. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  941 F.2d 622· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-28
  The court held that CIPS' distribution of settlement proceeds was reasonable and that CIPS should be permitted to deduct litigation expenses. The court also affirmed that the releases executed by the Illinois Cities barred their claims to the settlement proceeds.
• In re Bell & Beckwith v. McGRAW
  937 F.2d 1104· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-01
  The court held that SIPC may recapture overpayments to customers by including all customer claims in the pro rata calculation of customer property, and then returning to SIPC amounts exceeding a customer's claim up to the amount SIPC advanced.
• Cohen v. Metro. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  517 So. 2d 118· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-29
  Cohen, a receiver's certificate holder, appealed the trial court's confirmation of a foreclosure sale. The court reversed in part, holding that Cohen must receive a pro rata distribution of the foreclosure sale proceeds equal to his proportional share of the receiver's certificat
• Dep't OF Revenue v. Potamkin Dodge, Inc.
  442 So. 2d 287· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-11-29
  Florida Department of Revenue failed to perfect a sales tax lien by not filing a warrant as required by statute, and therefore takes only a pro rata share of purchase money deposited in court registry as a general creditor.
• Huguelet v. M & M Assocs., Inc.
  375 So. 2d 1150· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-10-17
  In this bulk sales dispute, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that secured creditors are entitled to priority payment from bulk sale proceeds over unsecured creditors, despite statutory language requiring pro rata distribution to all creditors. The court resolved w
• Frank v. Land Servs., Inc.
  327 So. 2d 851· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-02-20
  The court reversed the trial court's determination that Frank's mortgage interest was subordinate to other mortgagees, holding that a settlement agreement gave Frank equal priority in mortgage foreclosure proceeds on a pro rata basis.
• Johnson v. United States
  435 F.2d 1257· 4th Cir.· 1971-01-06
  The court held that the cost of separately acquired blocks of stock cannot be aggregated to determine the adjusted basis for calculating taxable gain from a corporate distribution.
• Rautbord v. Ehmann
  197 F.2d 323· 7th Cir.· 1952-05-26
  A decree limiting liability under the statute must apportion the limited fund pro rata among claimants based on their proven losses, which requires findings on those losses.
• Hightstown RUG Co. v. Nat'l Sav. & Tr. Co.
  162 F.2d 10· D.C. Cir.· 1947-05-26
  The court held that general creditors with non-interest bearing claims against a decedent's estate are entitled to interest when the estate becomes solvent, and the auditor's report did not limit the interest rate.
• Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Greenville v. United States
  143 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1944-07-06
  The court held that a dividend distribution was not preferential, despite a by-law requiring the president to pay a portion of his dividends to the secretary-treasurer, because the corporation itself distributed equally per share.
• Safety Convoy Co., Inc. v. Thomas
  139 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1943-12-09
  The court held that a corporation is not entitled to a dividends-paid credit for distributions that are not pro rata, equal in amount, and paid at the same time to all shareholders of the same class.
• Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Sarasota Cnty. v. State
  123 Fla. 16· Fla.· 1936-02-21
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a mandamus judgment requiring a school board to pay bond coupons from consolidated special tax district funds on a first-come, first-served basis rather than pro rata distribution. The decision establishes that holders of bond coupons can compel
• Kuehne v. Highland Glades Drainage Dist. (Cochrane
  S.D. Fla.· 1931-11-23
  A district court held that bonds pledged as collateral security are considered outstanding bonds for dividend distribution purposes, and that interveners holding pledged bonds may receive pro rata dividends equal to other bondholders but only up to the amount of their judgment in