Respondeat Superior

2,254 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Hollinger v. Titan Cap. Corp.
  914 F.2d 1564· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge argues that the doctrine of respondeat superior should not be grafted onto federal securities law actions, as it conflicts with the specific liability scheme and good faith defense provided by Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Vera (Ham) Robinson v. James Monaghan, M.D.
  864 F.2d 622· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint and exhibits created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a physician-patient relationship at the time of the insurance records request, precluding summary judgment on the professional negligence claim.
• Wilson v. The City OF N. Little Rock
  801 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the § 1983 claim against individual officers based on Parratt v. Taylor, as intentional abuse of power implicates substantive due process. However, the court affirmed the directed verdict for the City, finding no unconsti
• Williams v. Mensey
  785 F.2d 631· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-07 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish county liability under § 1983, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding discovery, mistrial, evidence admission, or damage and fee awards.
• Schwartz v. Zippy Mart, Inc.
  470 So. 2d 720· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-05-07 ·cited 34×
  Two former Zippy Mart employees appealed summary judgments dismissing their tort claims for sexual assault and battery allegedly committed by their supervisor. The court held that the Florida Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries, barring
• Hatrock v. Edward D. Jones & Co.
  750 F.2d 767· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 34×
  A brokerage firm can be held vicariously liable for punitive damages for its agent's fraudulent misrepresentations if the agent acted in a managerial capacity within the scope of employment, and churning cases do not require proof of loss causation.
• Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Anderson
  746 F.2d 1563· D.C. Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the "clear and convincing evidence" standard and the requirement for independent judicial determination of actual malice do not apply at the summary judgment stage in public figure libel cases. The court also rejected the "libel-proof" plaintiff doctrine.
• Gonpere Corp. v. Rebull
  440 So. 2d 1307· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-10-18 ·cited 34×
  A jury found that an apartment building owner and manager were liable under respondeat superior and negligent supervision theories after the manager shot two tenants. The court affirmed, holding that the shooting fell within the scope of employment because the manager's purpose w
• Occhino v. United States
  686 F.2d 1302· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act claim for false imprisonment damages was not clearly erroneous, and that a § 1983 claim, previously barred by the statute of limitations, should be analyzed under a broader statutory limitations period due to the Garmon decision's r
• Brigette Rabideau and Monika F. Jennings v. State of Fla. & Oscar Sambrine
  409 So. 2d 1045· Fla.· 1982-01-28 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that section 768.28's waiver of sovereign immunity does not make the state vicariously liable for injuries caused by a state employee operating a state vehicle outside the scope of employment under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The case in
• The Keyes Co. v. Sens
  382 So. 2d 1273· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-04-15 ·cited 34×
  In this tort case, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict and remanded for a new trial on damages, holding that the jury improperly apportioned compensatory damages among jointly liable defendants and imposed compensatory damages on a vicariously liabl
• GAY Student Servs. v. Tex. A & M Univ.
  612 F.2d 160· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case, as the university and its officials could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Eleventh Amendment immunity did not bar injunctive or declaratory relief.
• Honorable Ronald v. Dellums
  566 F.2d 216· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-04 ·cited 34×
• Sebastian v. United States
  531 F.2d 900· 8th Cir.· 1976-03-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed claims against most defendants based on immunity, good faith reliance on law, or lack of state action, and affirmed the dismissal of claims against hospital employees for lack of federal jurisdiction.
• Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs v. Lassitter
  295 So. 2d 634· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-04-26 ·cited 34×
  A jury awarded $1.25 million in damages against labor union defendants and an individual for assault and battery, holding the unions liable for their member's unprovoked beating of a non-union worker over a job site dispute. The appellate court affirmed liability but reversed and
• The Lummus Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  339 F.2d 728· D.C. Cir.· 1964-06-11 ·cited 34×
  A union's discriminatory refusal to refer workers based on a personal dispute with a union official does not automatically make an employer liable, especially if the employer lacks knowledge of the illegality and the denial was due to lack of available work.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. DES Moines Foods, Inc.
  296 F.2d 285· 8th Cir.· 1961-11-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, and thus the Board's order was enforceable.
• Wilson v. Lee Mem'l Hosp.
  65 So. 2d 40· Fla.· 1953-04-21 ·cited 34×
  Wilson sued Lee Memorial Hospital and three physicians after a surgical sponge was left in his abdomen during an operation, remaining undetected for nine years. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that disputed material facts re
• In re the Complaint of William McLINN v. The F/V Fjord
  744 F.2d 677· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-03 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the Alaska Owner Responsibility Statute may apply to a commercial fishing skiff used for recreational purposes, and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on this issue. The court also reversed the dismissal of the in rem claim against the
• Thomas v. W. World Ins. Co.
  343 So. 2d 1298· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-03-23 ·cited 33×
  The Thomases sought recovery from their liability insurer, Western World Insurance Company, for the full amount of a judgment against them ($18,459.73) after the insurer wrongfully refused to defend a negligence action, despite having actual notice that the claim sounded in negli
• Shapiro v. H. L. Green Co., Inc.
  316 F.2d 304· 2d Cir.· 1963-04-15 ·cited 33×
  A store that licenses a concessionaire to operate a department within its premises, retains the right to supervise, and shares in the gross receipts from sales, can be held vicariously liable for copyright infringement by the concessionaire, even without knowledge of the infringe
• Cordero v. De Jesus-Mendez
  867 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1989-01-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in awarding back pay post-verdict and in nullifying the jury's answer regarding official policy, necessitating a new trial on damages but not liability. It also affirmed that certain positions, like Municipal Secretary and Personnel Di
• Brown v. City OF Clewiston & Luis Perez
  848 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the City's official policy on the use of deadly force, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Cabell v. Petty
  810 F.2d 463· 4th Cir.· 1987-02-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' attorney did not violate Rule 11 by filing the complaint.
• Hinshaw v. Doffer
  785 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a judgment against the police chief for failure to supervise or train the officer, but sufficient to support judgments against the officer for false arrest and excessive force. The court also held that the officer is fu
• Horn v. Duke Homes
  755 F.2d 599· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-26 ·cited 32×
  An employer is strictly liable under Title VII for sexual harassment by a supervisor that creates a condition of employment, and back pay must be awarded unless special factors exist.
• Milan Schultz v. Baumgart
  738 F.2d 231· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-02 ·cited 32×
  A public employee with a property interest in their job must receive prior notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before termination; post-termination remedies do not cure a pre-termination due process violation if pre-termination procedures were practicable. Individual l
• Quinter v. Volkswagen OF Am.
  676 F.2d 969· 3d Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Byron Bloch could be held in civil contempt for violating the protective order, but his appearance on '20/20' was not a clear violation, while disclosing documents to another attorney was. The fine assessed requires reconsideration.
• N. River Energy Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  664 F.2d 1184· 11th Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding the local union liable for the initial wildcat strike based on common law agency principles, but correctly found insufficient evidence to hold the union liable for six subsequent strikes.
• Lea Duncan v. Duckworth
  644 F.2d 653· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 32×
  A pro se prisoner's complaint alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs should be liberally construed and not dismissed for failure to allege direct personal involvement if the defendant's position suggests responsibility.
• Marsha Hollis for the Estate of Tiffany Helina Hollis v. The Sch. Bd. OF Leon Cnty.
  384 So. 2d 661· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-05-19 ·cited 32×
  A Florida appellate court reversed summary judgment in a wrongful death case arising from a school bus accident, holding that a school superintendent can be vicariously liable for a bus driver's negligence and is not immune from liability for operational negligence in bus inspect
• Coffy v. Multi-County Narcotics Bureau
  600 F.2d 570· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the investigation used routine undercover techniques and there was insufficient evidence of personal fault or improper motive by the defendants.
• Reimer v. Short
  578 F.2d 621· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-21 ·cited 32×
• States S.S. Co. v. United States
  259 F.2d 458· 9th Cir.· 1957-05-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the shipowner failed to meet its burden of proving lack of privity or knowledge, and thus was not entitled to limitation of liability due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel caused by the negligence of its managing officers.
• United States v. Johnson
  181 F.2d 577· 9th Cir.· 1950-04-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the driver of the Navy vehicle was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred, and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, establishing negligence.
• Johnson v. Mills
  37 So. 2d 906· Fla.· 1948-12-14 ·cited 32×
  This case concerns whether a truck owner is liable for damages caused by an employee who took the owner's truck without permission. The court found the owner not liable because the employee was acting outside the scope of his employment and without consent when the accident occur
• Gochnauer v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.
  810 F.2d 1042· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 31×
  A stockbroker's breach of fiduciary duty under state common law does not automatically constitute a violation of federal or state anti-fraud securities provisions, as reliance is a required element for the latter but not necessarily for the former.
• Mitchell v. Keith
  752 F.2d 385· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing proposed jury instructions that were inaccurate or misleading, nor did it abuse its discretion in excluding evidence or awarding attorney's fees.
• Batista v. Rodriguez
  702 F.2d 393· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not allege a causal link between the City's alleged policy and the plaintiffs' injuries, and the evidence was insufficient to prove such causation.
• Webster v. The City OF Houston
  689 F.2d 1220· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-28 ·cited 31×
  The court held that punitive damages are not available against a municipality under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, regardless of the egregiousness of the conduct.
• Leaf v. United States
  588 F.2d 733· 9th Cir.· 1978-12-26 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a tort claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act arises where the negligent acts or omissions occurred, not where the injury or loss was sustained.
• C. L. Holloway et ux. v. Howerdd
  536 F.2d 690· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-16 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a brokerage firm can be liable under common law respondeat superior for an agent's fraudulent sale of unregistered securities, even if the agent acted outside firm rules, provided the investors reasonably believed the agent was acting with the firm's authority
• The People OF the State OF Cal. v. The Italian Motorship Ilice
  534 F.2d 836· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-05 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the case must be remanded to determine comparative fault under the new rule established in U.S. v. Reliable Transfer Co., and that the ship remains liable in rem for the compulsory pilot's negligence despite the owner's lack of personal liability.
• Bradford Coleman v. Jahncke Serv., Inc.
  341 F.2d 956· 5th Cir.· 1965-02-16 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, denying limitation of liability, allowing direct action against the insurer, and dismissing the driver's claim as time-barred.
• Atlas Underwear Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  116 F.2d 1020· 6th Cir.· 1941-01-15 ·cited 31×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including interference with employee self-organization and espionage.
• Speedway Superamerica, LLC v. Dupont
  933 So. 2d 75· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-05-26 ·cited 30×
  Speedway SuperAmerica appeals from a jury verdict awarding Dupont $80,740.54 in damages for sexual harassment and hostile work environment. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that co-worker Coryell's severe and pervasiv
• Nydia Tavarez and Manny Tavarez v. O'Malley
  826 F.2d 671· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the prolonged closure of the grocery store after the emergency had passed, without a hearing or opportunity to contest the seizure, constituted a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the district court erred in granting summary judgme
• Shaw v. State OF Cal. Dep't OF Alcoholic Bev. Control
  788 F.2d 600· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 30×
  The Eleventh Amendment and claim preclusion bar suits against state agencies and officials for damages, but not prospective injunctive relief. Issue preclusion does not apply to claims against municipal defendants when the initial tribunal lacked jurisdiction to directly decide t
• Wooten v. State
  464 So. 2d 640· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-03-05 ·cited 30×
  Wooten, a black carpenter charged with attempted second-degree murder, was convicted of simple battery after a jury credibility contest with the white victim. The appellate court reversed because the trial court improperly prohibited cross-examination of the victim regarding his
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Braemoor Assocs.
  686 F.2d 550· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the joint venture (Braemoor) is liable for the bank president's breach of fiduciary duty under the Uniform Partnership Act, regardless of the other venturers' knowledge of the breach.