Reasonable Diligence

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

• Yung v. Raymark Indus., Inc.
  789 F.2d 397· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's finding that the statute of limitations barred the Yungs' asbestos-related injury claim was supported by sufficient evidence, and the trial court did not err in denying a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor in trifurcating
• State v. SLY
  459 So. 2d 479· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-11-30 ·cited 6×
  The State appealed the trial court's dismissal of drug trafficking charges against Sly under the speedy trial rule after the court declared a mistrial when a crucial defense witness could not be located. The appellate court reversed, holding that the mistrial was valid and did no
• Ivaran Lines, Inc. v. Mauricio Waicman & Allstate Ins. Co.
  461 So. 2d 123· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-10-23 ·cited 6×
  Ivaran Lines and Farovi Shipping appealed a summary judgment finding them liable for negligence per se under Florida Statute 319.36 for shipping a stolen Rolls Royce without a certificate of right of possession. The court reversed, holding that violation of a statute is excused w
• HAU v. United States
  575 F.2d 1000· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim accrued no later than November 11, 1974, making his administrative claim filed over two years later untimely under the statute of limitations.
• Anne C. Sanders v. United States
  D.D.C.· 1977-02-16 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed a personal injury verdict, holding that while counsel's 'golden rule' arguments were improper, they did not constitute reversible error.
• Henzel v. Fink
  340 So. 2d 1262· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-12-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred the malpractice claim because the appellant had notice of the alleged negligence at the time of the trial, and the attorneys had no clear duty regarding the docket fee.
• Litchfield v. Eigen
  535 F.2d 72· C.C.P.A.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board of Patent Interferences did not err in awarding priority to Eigen because Litchfield and Vely failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in reducing their invention to practice.
• United States v. Williams
  488 F.2d 788· 10th Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant was not entrapped as a matter of law and that the government's failure to produce the informant was excused because they had made reasonable efforts to locate him.
• Gold Star Meat Co. v. Union Pac. Railboad Co.
  438 F.2d 1270· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-08 ·cited 6×
  A common carrier has a common law duty to inform a shipper of any known cause likely to delay transportation, and breach of this duty can lead to liability for resulting losses.
• Monnich v. Kropp
  408 F.2d 356· 6th Cir.· 1969-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court afforded the petitioner a full evidentiary hearing and that the petitioner cannot claim error for declining to present evidence.
• Plisco v. Union R.R. Co.
  379 F.2d 15· 3d Cir.· 1967-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, filed long after judgment became final, requires a showing of due diligence, which was lacking here.
• Freighter v. Nw. Marine Ironworks, Inc.
  341 F.2d 420· 8th Cir.· 1965-02-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the libelant failed to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain the charterer's authority to bind the vessel for repairs, and therefore, no maritime lien attached.
• The Glidden Co. v. Hellenic Lines
  315 F.2d 162· 2d Cir.· 1963-03-26 ·cited 6×
• George v. Kaminsky
  132 So. 2d 44· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-07-26 ·cited 6×
  Kaminsky purchased a motel based on fraudulently misrepresented earnings of $24,000 when actual earnings were $16,000. The lower court found material fraud but dismissed the complaint because Kaminsky failed to reasonably protect himself despite multiple warning signs and opportu
• Lindbar v. ST. Louis Fuel & Supply Co., Inc.
  276 F.2d 882· 6th Cir.· 1960-04-09 ·cited 6×
  A materialman must exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain if a charter party prohibits the vessel from being bound for supplies, even if not explicitly put on inquiry.
• ARD v. State
  108 So. 2d 42· Fla.· 1959-01-07 ·cited 6×
  Fred Ard appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and motion to set aside his guilty plea, claiming the solicitor promised leniency contingent on his guilty plea but failed to disclose the judge would not be bound by any sentencing arrangement. The Flor
• Grant Cnty. Deposit Bank v. Greene
  200 F.2d 835· 6th Cir.· 1952-12-16 ·cited 6×
  A collecting bank is liable for losses resulting from its failure to exercise ordinary care in handling drafts, including misrepresenting the drawee's solvency and failing to follow collection instructions.
• Kvalnes v. Wright
  183 F.2d 193· C.C.P.A.· 1950-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the party Kvalnes failed to demonstrate practical utility for the claimed dye, and thus did not establish actual reduction to practice.
• Scroggin Farms Corp. v. McFADDEN
  165 F.2d 10· 8th Cir.· 1948-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's claims against both the Commodity Credit Corporation and McFadden were barred by the statute of limitations and, on the merits, that McFadden, as a good faith second assignee, could retain the warehouse receipts.
• Applegarth v. Wilson
  156 F.2d 373· C.C.P.A.· 1946-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the Board of Interference Examiners' decision, holding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient proof of actual reduction to practice and reasonable diligence.
• S. Utils. Co. v. Murdock
  99 Fla. 1086· Fla.· 1930-05-14 ·cited 6×
  Southern Utilities Company appealed a jury verdict awarding Murdock $5,000 for injuries sustained when he came into contact with a fallen, electrically charged wire on his property. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the jury's finding of negl
• Drawdy Inv. Co.
  96 Fla. 397· Fla.· 1928-08-01 ·cited 6×
  Drawdy Investment Company appealed an order denying its petition to file a bill of review in a mortgage foreclosure suit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that newly discovered evidence—a $5,600 check that had been lost and accidentally found years later—was sufficient grounds
• State v. Dunnaway
  778 So. 2d 378· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-01-17 ·cited 5×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion. The appellate court emphasized the deference owed to a trial judge's decision to grant a new trial, especially when the judg
• Bermuda Express, N.V. v. M/V Litsa (EX. Laurie U) In Rem
  872 F.2d 554· 3d Cir.· 1989-04-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that stevedoring services and associated labor costs under collective bargaining agreements constitute 'necessaries' giving rise to maritime liens, and that the lienors exercised reasonable diligence, thus their claims were not barred by laches against a good faith
• Brown v. Maggio
  730 F.2d 293· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the habeas corpus petition under Rule 9(a) because the state demonstrated prejudice due to the petitioner's inexcusable delay in filing.
• Mazel v. McCURRACH
  110 So. 2d 696· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-04-10 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed a decree of specific performance for a land contract, finding that the vendors' tender of a title insurance policy with an exclusion for "filled in" land did not constitute a marketable title as required by the contract.
• Scott v. Empire Land Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 1925-05-21 ·cited 5×
  Scott conveyed land to Empire Land Co. by warranty deed in 1904 for $46,080, with an understanding that the company would pay the purchase price either in cash or by delivering bonds to be issued and secured by a mortgage on the property. The company mortgaged the property, issue
• Deren v. State
  962 So. 2d 385· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-08-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the State's failure to disclose an insurance letter detailing a victim's worker's compensation payments did not constitute a Brady violation because the defendant could have obtained the information with reasonable diligence.
• Menchise v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  932 So. 2d 1130· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-06-16 ·cited 4×
  A bankruptcy trustee appealed summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual on a bad faith insurance claim arising from the insurer's handling of a settlement offer in an automobile liability case. The court reversed, holding that disputed facts regarding Liberty Mutual's diligence
• D'Amico v. Brightfelt
  924 So. 2d 872· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-03-01 ·cited 4×
  A buyer sought specific performance of a residential real estate contract after the seller cancelled it due to the buyer's failure to obtain loan approval within the contractually required 14-day period. The court affirmed the denial of specific performance, holding that the loan
• Toro v. State
  862 So. 2d 68· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-11-07 ·cited 4×
  Evidence of a sexual relationship between the victim and Oscar Ortiz is not newly discovered where the defendant was aware of the possible relationship by 1995 and could have raised it with due diligence in his initial Rule 3.850 motion.
• Coyle v. Walker
  767 So. 2d 607· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-09-13 ·cited 4×
• Manley v. State
  705 So. 2d 691· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-01-30 ·cited 4×
  Manley appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady violation regarding withheld evidence. The court affirmed the denial, finding that Manley's claims were either procedurally barred, refuted by the trial record, or
• THE Florida BAR v. Boland
  702 So. 2d 229· Fla.· 1997-12-04 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld disciplinary findings against attorney Robert A. Boland for serious ethical violations including mishandling a custody case, converting client funds, fabricating evidence, and a pattern of criminal convictions. Boland was suspended from practice f
• Davidson v. Wilson
  973 F.2d 1391· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that sophisticated investors, who had access to written offering materials that contradicted oral representations and contained disclaimers, could not justifiably rely on those oral representations as a matter of law, thus affirming summary judgment.
• Tubari Ltd., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  959 F.2d 451· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The majority erred in finding that employees did not properly mitigate damages by accepting paid picketing work as interim employment.
• Tagliente v. Himmer
  949 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the fraudulent misrepresentation claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations and that there was insufficient evidence to support the Chapter 93A claim.
• State v. M.H., Jr.
  571 So. 2d 562· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-12-20 ·cited 4×
  The State appealed a trial court's order granting a juvenile defendant a new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the evidence before trial, as requir
• In re Asbestos Cases. (Two Cases) Hoo Kin Chang and Ethel F.O. Chang v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  847 F.2d 523· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury interrogatories and instructions adequately presented the issues to the jury, and the award of prejudgment interest was proper. The court also found the appeal to be frivolous.
• Timmel v. Moss
  803 F.2d 519· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-27 ·cited 4×
  The statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff learned or should have learned the facts essential to his claim, including the suspicion of professional blundering.
• Brock v. City OIL Well Serv. Co.
  795 F.2d 507· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 4×
  An employer violates OSHA regulations by failing to provide respirators when effective engineering controls are not used, even if such controls were feasible.
• Harvey v. Rogers T. Martin & Am. Postal Workers Union
  714 F.2d 650· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations because he failed to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering his causes of action.
• Vacura v. Plott
  666 F.2d 1200· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the determination of when a plaintiff knew or should have known of their cause of action in a medical malpractice suit is a question of fact for the jury, not for summary judgment, especially when the plaintiff relied on doctor's assurances of temporary recove
• Murray Hoffman v. Estabrook & Co., Inc.
  587 F.2d 509· 1st Cir.· 1978-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the officers intentionally deceived investors regarding the production stage of the company's products, but the underwriter was not reckless and the statute of limitations barred claims against them.
• The First Nat'l Bank OF Clearwater v. Bourquin
  310 So. 2d 310· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The First National Bank of Clearwater, as executor of Robert Bourquin's estate, appeals a judgment voiding a 1968 divorce decree. The trial court found that Robert failed to make diligent inquiry to locate his wife Helen before obtaining the divorce, but the appellate court rever
• Dillen v. Louie L. Wainwright
  449 F.2d 331· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-01 ·cited 4×
  The denial of a bill of particulars in a state criminal trial does not rise to constitutional proportions for federal habeas relief, nor does the prosecution's failure to disclose witnesses constitute grounds for relief if they could have been discovered with reasonable diligence
• Adolph Ajubita and A. W. Short v. S/S Peik
  428 F.2d 1345· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that pilots furnishing services to a time-chartered vessel are not entitled to a maritime lien when the charter party contains a lien preclusionary clause and the pilots failed to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain the charterer's authority.
• State OF Or. v. TUG GO Getter
  398 F.2d 873· 9th Cir.· 1968-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dissolving the writ of foreign attachment because the appellant failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting to serve process on the appellee within the district.
• Int'l Terminal Operating Co., Inc. v. SS Valmas
  375 F.2d 586· 4th Cir.· 1967-03-13 ·cited 4×
  A stevedore is not entitled to a maritime lien when charter parties, read together, provide sufficient notice that the lien is unauthorized, even if the subcharter itself does not explicitly prohibit it.
• Bimini RUN, Ltd. v. Belcher OIL Co.
  336 F.2d 184· 5th Cir.· 1964-07-20 ·cited 4×
  A supplier of necessaries to a vessel is charged with knowledge of charter terms if, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, it could have ascertained them, even if no suspicious circumstances exist.