Substantial Prejudice

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

• United States v. Armand Ventura
  724 F.2d 305· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a freight forwarder's actions in inflating shipping costs through unnecessary middlemen and concealing material information constituted wire fraud, as the forwarder had a fiduciary duty to the shipper.
• United States v. Brown
  667 F.2d 566· 6th Cir.· 1982-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendants' constitutional rights were not violated and affirmed their conviction for income tax evasion.
• United States v. Ramos
  586 F.2d 1078· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the pre-indictment delay did not violate due process and the post-indictment delay did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• Rayvon L. Boatman v. State
  77 So. 3d 1242· Fla.· 2011-12-15 ·cited 11×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a sexually violent predator respondent under the Jimmy Ryce Act who fails to challenge a trial court's continuance decision through habeas corpus before trial does not waive the claim by raising it on appeal, but cannot obtain release and dismi
• Coconut Key Homeowners Ass'n v. Lexington Ins.
  649 F. Supp. 2d 1363· S.D. Fla.· 2009-08-28 ·cited 11×
  The court denied Lexington's motion for partial summary judgment, finding the inspection provision was a cooperation clause requiring substantial prejudice, which Lexington failed to demonstrate. The court also granted in part and denied in part Lexington's motion to strike Plain
• Alamo Express, Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  613 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 11×
  The grant of an emergency temporary authority (ETA) is invalid when the ICC fails to follow its established notification procedure for existing carriers, causing prejudice.
• Anderson v. State
  93 So. 3d 1201· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-08-09 ·cited 10×
  Andrew Anderson appeals an involuntary civil commitment order under the Jimmy Ryce Act, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction and claiming violation of the mandatory 30-day trial requirement. The court affirmed the commitment order, finding that Anderson and his counsel acti
• Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores (NO. 471)
  891 F.2d 1177· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and its evidentiary ruling was not substantially prejudicial, thus affirming the decision.
• L.A. Adams v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
  888 F.2d 696· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-31 ·cited 10×
  Pre-dispute arbitration agreements are enforceable for claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and state and common law claims, even if the agreements are form contracts, absent a showing of substantial prejudice from any delay in seeking
• Clutchette v. Rushen
  770 F.2d 1469· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the wife's voluntary surrender of physical evidence, which the defense attorney was obligated to turn over under state law, did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. It also held that the district court had discretion to gra
• Onslow Cnty. v. United States Dep't OF Labor
  774 F.2d 607· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor had the authority to recoup misspent CETA funds from non-grant sources and that the failure to audit within two years did not bar recoupment. However, the Secretary failed to exercise his statutory discretion to consider equitable waiver
• Saludes v. Evelyn Ramos, M.D.
  744 F.2d 992· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 10×
  A claimant seeking recovery against the Government for alleged malpractice must comply with both the Medical Malpractice Act and the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act filing requirements.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Jones
  422 So. 2d 1000· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-11-24 ·cited 10×
  This complex insurance coverage dispute arises from an automobile accident where the injured plaintiff obtained judgments against two insurance carriers—Travelers and United States Fire—based on bad faith and breach of duty theories. The appellate court reversed the judgment agai
• Arthur Murray Studio OF Wash., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  458 F.2d 622· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-21 ·cited 10×
• United States v. REA
  958 F.2d 1206· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that while a witness's opinion testimony regarding a defendant's knowledge of a tax evasion scheme may have been improperly admitted, it did not constitute reversible error given the overall evidence. The court affirmed the convictions.
• Imperial Ins. v. The Emp'rs' Liab. Assurance Corp.
  442 F.2d 1197· D.C. Cir.· 1970-05-28 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial judge's reference in instructions to the possibility of criminal prosecution of the general manager constituted prejudicial error, leading the jury to consider the manager's actions more seriously.
• United States v. Greene
  737 F.2d 572· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant was not denied due process or a speedy trial due to pre- or post-indictment delay, nor were other trial errors meritorious.
• United States v. Jorge-Salon
  734 F.2d 789· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the defendants' convictions for murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy, finding no merit in their various appellate arguments.
• Alumbaugh Coal Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  635 F.2d 1380· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the company unlawfully discharged an employee for union activity, the employee's subsequent post-discharge dishonesty warrants modification of the reinstatement and backpay remedy. The court also affirmed the Board's bargaining order.
• Rayvon L. Boatman v. State
  39 So. 3d 391· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-06-22 ·cited 7×
  Rayvon Boatman appealed his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, arguing the trial court violated the statutory 30-day deadline for trial by granting the state an improper continuance. The court affirmed the commitment but held that Boat
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. City of Jacksonville
  550 F. Supp. 2d 1312· M.D. Fla.· 2007-09-11 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiffs (insurers) exercised good faith and due diligence in attempting to bring about the defendants' (insureds') cooperation, thus granting their motion for summary judgment.
• United States v. Minicone
  960 F.2d 1099· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 6×
• Jourdan v. Equitable Equip. Co.
  889 F.2d 637· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 does not apply to LHWCA section 18(a) enforcement proceedings, and any procedural errors were harmless.
• Loper v. United States
  160 F.2d 293· 10th Cir.· 1947-01-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and proof is immaterial if it does not cause substantial prejudice to the defendant and that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's verdict.
• Heartland Express v. Farber
  230 So. 3d 146· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-09-29 ·cited 5×
  Heartland Express appealed a judgment in favor of Torres's guardian regarding a negligence claim arising from a tractor-trailer accident in Alabama. The court reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial on wantonness and punitive damages, finding that admitted expert te
• State v. Hope
  89 So. 3d 1132· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-06-18 ·cited 5×
  The State appeals the trial court's dismissal of a drug sale charge based on a due process violation caused by pre-arrest delay of nearly three years. The appellate court affirms, holding that Florida's test for pre-arrest delay violations does not require proof of intentional go
• Philadelphia Indem. Ins. v. Kohne
  294 F. Supp. 2d 1319· M.D. Fla.· 2003-12-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the insured's failure to notify the insurer of the lawsuit and entering into a settlement agreement constituted an unexcused material breach of the cooperation clause, relieving the insurer of its duties. Summary judgment was granted for the insurer on its dec
• Arcor, Inc. v. Textron, Inc.
  960 F.2d 710· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendants' motions and that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence, affirming the judgment.
• United States v. LaMORTE
  950 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 4×
  The prosecutor's statement that the government is too busy to prosecute innocent people, while improper, did not substantially prejudice the defendant given the context and overwhelming evidence. The jury instruction on withdrawal from conspiracy, though containing potentially co
• Escalera v. Coombe
  826 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that precluding an alibi witness solely as a sanction for noncompliance with notice statutes, absent a showing of substantial prejudice, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the district court erred in failing to review the sufficiency of evidenti
• United States v. Coffey
  823 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The prosecutor's erroneous statement referencing extra-record facts, though improper, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial because it was promptly corrected by the trial judge and the overall evidence supported the conviction.
• Rustia v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  440 So. 2d 1316· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-11-01 ·cited 4×
  Rustia appeals a summary judgment in favor of Prudential Insurance, which claimed the insured breached the insurance contract by failing to cooperate. The court reversed, holding that whether an insured's failure to cooperate substantially prejudices the insurer is ordinarily a f
• Al Baumler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  493 F.2d 130· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Arizona Financial Responsibility Act's "omnibus clause" protects injured parties, not the insured, and does not negate policy defenses in suits brought by the insured against the insurer. The court also affirmed the jury's finding that the insured's noncoo
• Associated Indem. Corp. v. Davis
  136 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1943-05-28 ·cited 4×
  An insurer is not relieved from liability under a policy due to the insured's failure to cooperate unless that failure results in substantial prejudice to the insurer's position.
• United States v. Devore
  133 F.2d 694· 8th Cir.· 1943-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that admitting testimony on the separate value of timber, even if potentially improper as to the order of proof, was harmless error because it did not cause substantial prejudice to the government.
• Fleurimond Barthelemy v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill.
  257 So. 3d 1029· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-10-24 ·cited 3×
  The "failure to cooperate" affirmative defense in an insurance coverage case requires the insurer to establish both a material failure to cooperate with post-loss obligations and substantial prejudice to the insurer. The jury instruction that omitted the materiality and substanti
• Pakonis v. Clark
  183 So. 3d 386· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-02-05 ·cited 3×
  Defects in naming appellees in the notice of appeal are non-jurisdictional when the appellees are identified in the judgment itself, the notice is timely filed referencing the judgment, and the opposing party is not substantially prejudiced.
• Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. v. Fleurimond Barthelemy
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-07-14 ·cited 2×
  An insured sought declaratory relief for insurance coverage after the insurer denied a claim due to the insured's failure to comply with examination under oath (EUO) requirements. After the first trial resulted in a judgment for the insurer but was reversed on appeal due to incor
• Dones v. Moss
  884 So. 2d 230· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the evidentiary rulings caused substantial prejudice and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
• United States v. Copelin
  996 F.2d 379· D.C. Cir.· 1993-06-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while admitting evidence of the defendant's positive drug tests for impeachment was proper, the failure to provide an immediate limiting instruction to the jury constituted plain error.
• United States v. Stevens
  985 F.2d 1175· 2d Cir.· 1993-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing due to procedural flaws in the sentencing calculation.
• United States v. Stiles
  965 F.2d 353· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof at trial, as the evidence sufficiently demonstrated the defendant's confinement was by virtue of a 1983 conviction.
• United States v. Davidson
  936 F.2d 856· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to sever tax charges pertaining only to an absent co-defendant.
• MacIas v. Bankers Ins. Co.
  452 So. 2d 1020· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-07-03 ·cited 2×
• Roman v. State
  438 So. 2d 487· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-09-27 ·cited 2×
  The Florida appellate court reversed Roman's attempted armed robbery conviction because the trial court erred in denying his mistrial motion after the arresting officer testified about an uncharged robbery, constituting a Williams violation that was not harmless error.
• Rintin Corp. v. Domar, Ltd.
  370 F. Supp. 2d 1277· S.D. Fla.· 2005-05-24 ·cited 1×
  The court confirmed the arbitral award, denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate, finding no grounds under the Florida International Arbitration Act to set aside the award.
• Pimentel v. Alamo
  555 So. 2d 895· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-01-09 ·cited 1×
  In this ejectment and trespass case, the Florida appellate court reversed a judgment against defendant Pimentel, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by excluding a quitclaim deed allegedly executed by plaintiff Alamo in favor of the defendant or his son. The e
• IN & for NEW Castle Cnty. S---- C-------
  Del. Fam. Ct.· 2025-08-22
  The Court granted the Wife's motion to reopen the divorce proceeding and retain jurisdiction over ancillary matters. The Court found that the Wife did not receive actual or constructive notice of the divorce action, thus denying her due process. Alternatively, the Court found ext
• v. Shaquan Guilford
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-08-01
  The Court denied the defendant's motions for postconviction relief and sentence modification, finding them either procedurally barred or lacking in merit. The defendant's sentence was deemed legal, there was no Brady violation, and his trial counsel was effective, ensuring his gu
• Perez v. Anderson
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-03
  The court held that the admission of the plaintiff's prior conviction and drug use evidence was proper, and denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an appeal.