-
717 F. Supp. 1537·
S.D. Fla.·
1989-07-19
·cited 30×
The court held that a counterclaim for breach of contract could proceed based on implicit obligations, but claims for fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and RICO were dismissed for failure to state a claim or meet pleading requirements, with leave to amend for some.
-
184 So. 2d 678·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1966-03-31
·cited 30×
Brooks Rice appeals a jury verdict in favor of physician Baxter Clement in a medical malpractice action. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly limited the case to simple negligence, allowed contributory negligence as a defense despite pr
-
350 So. 3d 826·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2024-01-24
·cited 21×
A trial court must make a preliminary determination whether a reasonable jury could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted, requiring the movant to demonstrate competent, substantial evidence that the defendant specifically intended intentional
-
761 F. Supp. 1569·
S.D. Fla.·
1991-04-06
·cited 17×
Florida Statute § 768.72's pleading requirements conflict with Federal Rule 8 and are therefore inapplicable in federal diversity actions; its discovery provision does not conflict with Federal Rule 26.
-
658 So. 2d 1010·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1994-12-21
·cited 8×
The court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court's factual findings regarding the evidentiary basis for punitive damages.
-
272 So. 3d 824·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2019-05-16
·cited 5×
A plaintiff seeking to add a punitive damages claim against a corporate entity based on an employee's conduct must make a reasonable showing by evidence that corporate management knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to the misconduct; an allegation that a non-management emp
-
966 F. Supp. 1188·
S.D. Fla.·
1997-06-04
·cited 5×
The court held that Florida Statute § 768.72's pleading requirements for punitive damages conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore do not apply in federal diversity actions.
-
953 F. Supp. 1534·
S.D. Fla.·
1997-02-17
·cited 5×
Florida Statute § 768.72, which requires a reasonable evidentiary basis before punitive damages can be pleaded, is substantive law and must be applied in federal court to state law claims to prevent forum shopping and inequitable administration of the law.
-
616 So. 2d 553·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1993-03-31
·cited 4×
-
379 So. 3d 1205·
Fla. 5th DCA·
2024-01-12
·cited 2×
This case addresses whether a trial court must make explicit affirmative findings when granting leave to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that while affirmative findings were previously req
-
17 F. Supp. 2d 1291·
N.D. Fla.·
1998-03-11
·cited 2×
Florida Statute § 768.72, requiring a preliminary evidentiary showing for punitive damages, directly conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and must yield in federal diversity cases.
-
460 So. 2d 991·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1984-12-19
·cited 2×
This appeal addresses whether complaints alleging personal injuries from chemical exposure state valid causes of action in negligence and punitive damages against former employers and a successor corporation. The court affirmed dismissal of punitive damages and derivative family
-
3 So. 3d 1270·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2009-03-10
·cited 1×
The appellate court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari, quashing a lower court's order that denied a motion to strike a claim for punitive damages. The court found that the plaintiff failed to follow the statutory procedures for pleading punitive damages.
-
966 F. Supp. 1149·
M.D. Fla.·
1997-05-29
·cited 1×
The Florida statute governing the pleading of punitive damages applies in federal court because it creates a substantive right, and applying federal rules would lead to inequitable administration of law and forum shopping.
-
635 So. 2d 106·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1994-04-06
·cited 1×
Kraft General Foods petitioned for certiorari to prevent a plaintiff from pleading punitive damages claims without prior court authorization. The court held that Florida Statute § 768.72 requires claimants to obtain prior judicial approval before pleading punitive damages, even i
-
Fla. 2d DCA·
2025-12-03
A trial court properly denies a motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a punitive damages claim when the evidence does not establish intentional misconduct or gross negligence by the corporate defendant or its managing agents, even if negligence by lower-level employees is
-
390 So. 3d 678·
Fla. 3d DCA·
2024-02-28
A party seeking leave to amend a complaint to add punitive damages must attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion and provide evidence supporting the punitive damages claim prior to the hearing, and the trial court must make an affirmative finding of a reasonable evident
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-19
A federal court in a diversity case must apply federal rules of procedure, and Florida Statute § 768.72, which requires a preliminary judicial determination before pleading punitive damages, conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3) and thus does not apply.
-
677 So. 2d 22·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1996-06-19
A trial court must determine if there is a reasonable basis for punitive damages before allowing a claim to be asserted, and cannot defer this determination until trial.
-
47 Fla. Supp. 118·
Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.·
1978-04-17
A business owner sued Florida Power & Light Co. for allegedly wrongfully terminating his electric service after discovering alleged meter tampering and billing him for estimated diverted current. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that disputes over utility service termin