Transaction Or Occurrence

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

• Maye G. Neil v. S. Fla. Auto Painters, Inc.
  397 So. 2d 1160· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-04-28 ·cited 81×
  Neil sued South Florida Auto Painters (APCA) for assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and malicious prosecution arising from an incident at APCA's garage. The trial court dismissed the first three counts as compulsory counterclaims t
• Marrese v. Am. Acad. OF Orthopaedic Surgeons
  726 F.2d 1150· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its discovery order and contempt citation. It asserts that while the discovery order could have been improved, the Academy's defiance of the trial court constituted contempt, and the contempt ci
• United States v. The Heyward-Robinson Co., Inc.
  430 F.2d 1077· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the counterclaim relating to the Stelma job was not compulsory under F.R.Civ.P. 13(a) because it did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim.
• Pipeliners Local Union NO. 798 v. Ellerd
  503 F.2d 1193· 10th Cir.· 1974-10-02 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the counterclaim and that the admission of business records was proper. Damages awarded were not too remote or unsubstantiated.
• United States v. Athlone Indus., Inc.
  746 F.2d 977· 3d Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a prior judgment in an "imminent hazard" suit under section 12 of the Consumer Product Safety Act does not have a res judicata effect on a subsequent civil penalty suit under sections 15 and 20 of the Act.
• Columbia Plaza Corp. v. Sec. Nat'l Bank
  525 F.2d 620· D.C. Cir.· 1975-10-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the District Court erred in denying a preliminary injunction to enjoin prosecution of a New York action, as the claims constituted a compulsory counterclaim that should be litigated in the District of Columbia.
• Leila J. Evans v. Parker
  440 So. 2d 640· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-11-16 ·cited 34×
  A counterclaim arising out of the same transaction as the opposing party's claim is a compulsory counterclaim not barred by the statute of limitations, and the statute of frauds does not clearly and conclusively appear on the face of the pleadings where there is partial performan
• Johnson v. Allen
  621 So. 2d 507· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-07-02 ·cited 33×
  This is the fourth appeal in a dispute between the Johnsons and their former law firm Allen, Knudsen regarding legal fees and malpractice claims. The court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against the Johnsons' counterclaim, holding that the counterclaim was c
• Taussig v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  301 So. 2d 21· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-10-04 ·cited 31×
  Taussig appealed the dismissal of his malicious prosecution complaint against INA, but INA moved to dismiss the appeal arguing the order was not final because INA's counterclaim remained pending. The court resolved a longstanding conflict in Florida appellate jurisprudence by ado
• Cmax, Inc. v. Drewry Photocolor Corp.
  295 F.2d 695· 9th Cir.· 1961-10-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the judgment was not final under Rule 54(b) because the two counts in the complaint represented a single claim arising from one transaction, not multiple distinct claims for relief.
• Parmelee v. Chicago Eye Shield Co.
  157 F.2d 582· 8th Cir.· 1946-10-28 ·cited 24×
  A summary judgment should not be entered when genuine issues of fact are raised by counterclaims arising from the same transaction as the plaintiff's claim.
• Nash v. Walker
  78 So. 2d 685· Fla.· 1955-02-09 ·cited 22×
  Nash Chemical Company sought to recover approximately $4,000 for fungicides and insecticides from Walker and Williams. After Nash obtained a garnishment writ and later discharged it by bond, the defendants counterclaimed for damages to their personal and financial reputation from
• Metro. Cas. Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. Walker
  151 Fla. 314· Fla.· 1942-08-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's counterclaim, labeled as a set-off and not arising from the same transaction as the plaintiff's claim, was permissive and the cause should not have been transferred to circuit court based on lack of jurisdiction over the counterclaim amount.
• Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. The United States
  493 F.2d 1357· Ct. Cl.· 1974-03-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Assistant Secretary's interpretation of the Vessel Exchange Act and the contract regarding the cost of in-class repairs was correct, and that deferring the final valuation of vessels until after redelivery was permissible under the Act.
• Providential Dev. Co. v. United States Steel Co.
  236 F.2d 277· 10th Cir.· 1956-08-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the prior judgment dismissing Steel from the action in the Western District of Oklahoma constituted res judicata, barring the subsequent action by Providential against Steel.
• Suggs v. Cowart
  437 So. 2d 238· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-09-15 ·cited 16×
  Property owners and a real estate broker filed competing actions in different Florida counties arising from the same real estate transaction dispute. The court held that when two parties file separate actions against each other in different counties involving the same facts and p
• United States for the Use & Benefit of Samuel J. Pickard v. S. Constr. Co., Inc.
  293 F.2d 493· 6th Cir.· 1961-08-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a material breach justifying quantum meruit recovery requires a fundamental breach going to the root of the contract, and that the $35,000 payment was a compulsory counterclaim that should have been raised in the first filed action.
• Inter-Active Servs., Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass'n, Inc.
  809 So. 2d 900· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-03-15 ·cited 15×
  Inter-Active Services appealed a summary judgment dismissing its breach of contract damages claim against Heathrow Master Association, arguing the claim was barred by res judicata and compulsory counterclaim rules. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the damages cl
• John R. Alley & Co., Inc. v. Fed. Nat. Bank of Shawnee
  124 F.2d 995· 10th Cir.· 1942-01-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a usury counterclaim to be asserted in a pending action, even if the motion to dismiss was filed before the rules' effective date.
• Roden v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  145 So. 3d 183· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-08-13 ·cited 12×
  This case addresses whether a personal injury complaint can be amended to add a wrongful death claim after the original plaintiff dies during pending litigation. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that wrongful death claims need not be brought as separate act
• Gatzemeyer v. Vogel
  589 F.2d 360· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the current fraud claim was barred by claim preclusion because it arose from the same transaction as a prior breach of contract action and could have been litigated then.
• Dindo v. Whitney
  451 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1971-11-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a) may be barred even if the prior action was settled rather than tried to judgment, but a factual determination of the plaintiff's knowledge of the counterclaim is required.
• Gonzalo Aguilar, M.D. v. Se. Bank, N.A.
  728 So. 2d 744· Fla.· 1999-03-18 ·cited 11×
  A defendant who is not an obligor on the original note and mortgage in an in rem foreclosure action is not required to bring, as a compulsory counterclaim, tort claims arising out of the same operative facts as the foreclosure action if those claims do not satisfy the 'logical re
• Albright v. Gates
  362 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1966-06-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that ancillary jurisdiction exists over new parties added to a compulsory counterclaim, even if they were not original parties to the suit.
• DEL RIO v. Brandon
  696 So. 2d 1197· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-05-21 ·cited 8×
  A final summary judgment of foreclosure should not be granted before a compulsory counterclaim, which is inextricably interwoven with the foreclosure issues and demands a jury trial, is considered.
• Fagnan v. Great Cent. Ins. Co.
  577 F.2d 418· 7th Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the federal compulsory counterclaim rule bars an action against an insurance company under a state direct action statute if a direct action against the insured would have been barred.
• Mesker Bros. Iron Co. v. Donata Corp.
  401 F.2d 275· 4th Cir.· 1968-09-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Mesker's claim was not barred by the compulsory counterclaim rule and that Virginia law, as interpreted by its highest court, did not preclude recovery by an unlicensed contractor under these circumstances.
• Clair v. Kastar, Inc.
  138 F.2d 828· 2d Cir.· 1943-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the patentee's failure to disclaim invalid claims after an appellate court affirmed valid claims requires reversal, and that a counterclaim for infringement of a different patent did not arise from the same transaction.
• Biondo v. Althea Powers
  805 So. 2d 67· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-01-16 ·cited 5×
  John Biondo appealed a summary judgment dismissing all seven counts of his complaint against Althea Powers. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of five counts as compulsory counterclaims that should have been raised in prior litigation, but reversed and remande
• Clare J. Greenshields v. Greenshields
  312 So. 3d 161· Fla. 5th DCA· 2021-01-21 ·cited 4×
  In this family law dispute arising from a post-divorce loan, the appellate court reversed the trial court's directed verdicts, holding that the former husband's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims were not compulsory counterclaims to an earlier alimony dispute, and th
• Ocean Bank v. State
  902 So. 2d 833· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-03-31 ·cited 4×
  A claim to void a mortgage is a compulsory counterclaim in a pending mortgage foreclosure action and must be brought in the foreclosure action, not in a separate receivership proceeding. The receivership court therefore lacks jurisdiction to separately consider such a claim when
• Comer v. City of Palm Bay
  147 F. Supp. 2d 1292· M.D. Fla.· 2001-06-21 ·cited 4×
  A writ of mandamus to compel payment of a judgment exceeding statutory limits is denied because Florida law requires such excess amounts to be paid by legislative appropriation, not judicial enforcement.
• The Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon Corp. & Exxon Research & Eng'g Co.
  929 F.2d 960· 3d Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Lubrizol's claim for reformation of the settlement agreement was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because it arose from the same underlying events and could have been litigated in the prior Texas action.
• Mishal Bin Saud v. The Bank OF NEW York
  929 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 4×
  A prior default judgment on a loan guaranty bars a subsequent RICO action based on the same underlying loan transaction, as the claims were or could have been litigated in the first action.
• SUE & SAM Mfg. Co. v. B-L-S Constr. Co.
  538 F.2d 1048· 4th Cir.· 1976-04-21 ·cited 4×
  A permissive counterclaim requires an independent jurisdictional basis, and if the parties are from the same state, such a counterclaim cannot be adjudicated on the merits.
• Hollywood Lakes Country Club, Inc. v. Silver & Waldman, P.A.
  737 So. 2d 1194· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-07-21 ·cited 3×
  Hollywood Lakes Country Club and E.M. Seagall appealed the denial of their motion to transfer venue of an attorney's fees action from Dade County to Broward County. The court reversed, holding that the fee dispute constituted a compulsory counterclaim to the malpractice action fi
• Tullos v. Parks
  915 F.2d 1192· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised ancillary jurisdiction over the defendant's state law counterclaims because they were compulsory counterclaims arising from the same transaction as the plaintiff's federal securities law claims.
• Chahram Pahlavi v. Petros Palandjian
  809 F.2d 938· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Palandjian's counterclaims were time-barred and not compulsory, and that Pahlavi was entitled to summary judgment on his claim regarding the dishonored check, with pre-judgment interest awarded from the date of dishonor.
• Int'l City Bank & Tr. Co. v. Forest Shores, Inc.
  340 So. 2d 530· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-12-16 ·cited 2×
  International City Bank & Trust Company and ICB Corporation appealed the denial of their motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss a cross-claim filed by Forest Shores, Inc. The court held that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to establ
• Cason v. Fla. Favorite Fertilizer, Inc.
  547 So. 2d 703· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-08-04 ·cited 1×
  Appellants sought review of a trial court order transferring their employment contract breach lawsuit from Polk County to Hillsborough County. The appellate court reversed, holding that venue properly lay in Polk County where the defendant corporation maintained its principal pla
• Cabral v. City of Fort Myers
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-26
  The court held that individual plaintiffs' claims arising from separate interactions with law enforcement officers do not satisfy the requirements for permissive joinder under Rule 20 and must be severed. However, claims against the City challenging the constitutionality of a noi
• Norfleet v. Charlotte Cnty. Jail
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-07
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed without prejudice due to procedural deficiencies and improper joinder of unrelated claims.
• Moretto v. Wilson
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-04
  The court held that while the plaintiff's motion to reopen is granted due to payment of the filing fee, he must file a second amended complaint to properly state his claims.
• Continental Connections v. D.O.D. Holdings, LLC
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2023-11-01
  This case involves investors appealing a summary judgment that barred their claims as compulsory counterclaims in a prior lawsuit. The appellate court reversed, finding the claims were not compulsory counterclaims because they lacked a logical relationship to the prior action.
• Heart Realty I, LLC v. D.O.D. Holdings, LLC
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2023-11-01
  The appellate court reversed a summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs' claims for repayment of loans were not compulsory counterclaims in a prior lawsuit. The court determined there was no logical relationship between the prior lawsuit concerning a fraudulent loan and the
• Boatman v. Carner
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-25
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and improperly joined unrelated claims, requiring dismissal.
• Davis v. Bank of Am.
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-09-30
  Charles Davis appeals a trial court's denial of his motion to compel arbitration regarding Bank of America's counterclaim arising from a disputed $20,000 cashier's check transaction. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the arbitration motion and remanded for entry of a
• Harris v. Dixon
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-09-13
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to sufficiently plead his claims and improperly joined unrelated allegations against multiple defendants.
• Milledge v. McClellan
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-03-10
  The court held that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for several claims, but other claims could proceed due to factual disputes or lack of challenge. The court also found the claims were not frivolous and were properly joined, with one exception.
• Roberts v. State Attorney
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-16
  The court held that prosecutors are immune from suit for actions taken in their prosecutorial capacity and that unrelated claims against different defendants cannot be joined in a single action.