Unclean Hands Doctrine

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

• Mascola v. Lusskin
  727 So. 2d 328· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-02-17 ·cited 24×
  In this child support case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal holds that a payor parent convicted of soliciting murder to avoid child support obligations cannot use incarceration as grounds to modify or eliminate support duties, even when lacking current income. The court align
• Boston Celtics Ltd. P'ship v. Shaw
  908 F.2d 1041· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lawfully enforced the arbitration award and issued a preliminary injunction, as the arbitration award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and the district court properly considered the factors for injunctive relief.
• Cameo Hotel & Apts., Ltd. v. Rhoda Morris and Audrey Lewis
  543 So. 2d 277· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-04-11 ·cited 24×
• Sundance Land Corp. v. Cmty. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  840 F.2d 653· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 24×
  Sundance has standing to seek injunctive relief under HOLA because its injury is a foreseeable consequence of the alleged illegal loan, but it lacks standing to seek damages due to the indirect nature of its injury.
• Conan Props., Inc. v. Conans Pizza, Inc.
  752 F.2d 145· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-04 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge believes the injunction should prohibit the defendant's use of the name CONAN outside of Austin to prevent continued confusion and protect the plaintiff's goodwill.
• W.F. Yost v. Rieve Enters., Inc.
  461 So. 2d 178· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-12-11 ·cited 24×
  In this consolidated appeal involving the sale of a restaurant, the court addressed claims of fraud and misrepresentation by the seller Yost, breach of contract by buyer Rieve, and the broker Stirrett's entitlement to commission. The court affirmed rescission based on fraudulent
• Liew v. Official Receiver AND Liquidator (Hong Kong)
  685 F.2d 1192· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its choice of law determination regarding the assignment's validity, and that Singapore law should apply. The exclusion of evidence regarding the Moscow Norodny Bank was not an abuse of discretion.
• Marshall v. Marshall
  386 So. 2d 11· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-06-11 ·cited 24×
  A husband who acknowledges paternity and has a child's birth certificate amended to reflect his paternity is estopped from denying paternity and is obligated to support the child, even if he is not the biological father, to protect the child's best interests.
• McCULLOUGH Tool Co. v. Well Surveys
  395 F.2d 230· 10th Cir.· 1968-05-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a modified device, being a colorable variation of an enjoined infringing device, can be subject to contempt proceedings, and that allegations of patent misuse did not preclude summary judgment.
• Corning Glass Works v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.
  374 F.2d 473· 3d Cir.· 1967-03-20 ·cited 24×
  The Court of Appeals held that the patent was not unenforceable due to indefiniteness, as the claims, read in light of the specifications and considering the patent's pioneer status, were sufficiently precise to inform those skilled in the art.
• Tex. Cont'l Life Ins. Co. v. Dunne
  307 F.2d 242· 6th Cir.· 1962-08-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the question of whether Biggers had knowledge of the sale on credit was a disputed issue of fact that required submission to the jury, and thus the trial court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law.
• Baker v. Nason
  236 F.2d 483· 5th Cir.· 1956-08-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict based on mutual fraud, as the evidence did not support such a finding, and the case presented factual issues requiring submission to a jury.
• The Coleman Co., Inc. v. Holly Mfg. Co.
  233 F.2d 71· 9th Cir.· 1956-04-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Holly device, despite using old elements, was patentable because their combination produced a new, useful, and unexpected result, exceeding the sum of its parts.
• Austin v. Texas-Ohio GAS Co.
  218 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1955-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction and granted a preliminary injunction in an interpleader action, even though the plaintiff did not deposit all disputed shares into court.
• Borden v. The Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.
  935 F.2d 370· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not err in voiding the insurance policies due to material misrepresentations, and that the jury's findings on fraud, bad faith, and breach of contract were supportable.
• Trans Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  650 F.2d 949· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-14 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act's anti-injunction policy should yield to the Railway Labor Act's (RLA) policy of avoiding disruption of commerce, particularly when a union breaches its duty to maintain agreements.
• Cataphote Corp. v. Hudson
  422 F.2d 1290· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-20 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the trial court erred by requiring uniqueness and novelty for trade secret protection and vacated the judgment for new findings on whether the claimed secrets qualified as such and whether they were illegally appropriated.
• Nat'l Airlines v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  416 F.2d 998· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-23 ·cited 23×
  The court held that while the carrier's resort to self-help was justified due to an unmanageable wildcat strike, the mass discharge of strikers exceeded permissible bounds; reinstatement rights depend on whether strikers were replaced.
• Switzer Bros., Inc. v. Locklin
  207 F.2d 483· 7th Cir.· 1953-10-08 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the denial of an intervenor's application to file a counterclaim seeking injunctive relief is an appealable order, and that the intervenor had a right to file such a counterclaim.
• Peninsula Land Co. v. Howard
  6 So. 2d 384· Fla.· 1941-10-31 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a foreclosure decree, finding that the appellants had made a bona fide application under the Murphy Act to purchase tax certificates, which suspended the clerk's authority to sell those certificates under a different statute. The court emphasize
• Supermarket OF Homes, Inc. v. SAN Fernando Valley Bd. OF Realtors
  786 F.2d 1400· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant on antitrust claims and copyright infringement counterclaim, and in striking certain affirmative defenses.
• First Beverages v. Royal Crown Cola Co.
  612 F.2d 1164· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court properly applied the rule of reason to vertical territorial restrictions and that any error in admitting evidence related to the pari delicto or unclean hands defenses was harmless.
• Viking Cmtys. Corp. v. Peeler Constr. Co. & Star Constr. Co. of Ft. Pierce, Inc.
  367 So. 2d 737· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-02-21 ·cited 22×
  Viking Communities appeals a judgment awarding Star Construction full damages under quantum meruit theory despite finding Star breached a construction contract. The court reverses, holding that a contractor who substantially performs a construction contract is entitled to a mecha
• Daugette v. Patterson
  250 F.2d 753· 5th Cir.· 1957-12-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue cannot compromise a tax claim without the Secretary of the Treasury's assent, and a taxpayer is not estopped from denying such a compromise.
• Hauer v. Thum
  67 So. 2d 643· Fla.· 1953-10-16 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's order striking from the defendants' answer allegations that the written construction contract was fraudulent and entered into to deceive a lender in violation of Federal Regulation X. The court held that such allegations of fraud
• Franco-Italian Packing Corp. v. Van Camp Sea Food Co., Inc.
  142 F.2d 274· C.C.P.A.· 1944-04-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the marks 'Gem-of-the-Sea' and 'Chicken of the Sea' are not confusingly similar when viewed as a whole, despite the shared descriptive term 'of the Sea'.
• Am. Ins. Co. v. Scheufler
  129 F.2d 143· 8th Cir.· 1942-07-10 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the decrees distributing impounded funds to policyholders, finding the insurance companies were not entitled to the funds and had participated in fraud.
• Pyne v. Black
  650 So. 2d 1073· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-02-17 ·cited 21×
  A former custodial parent's motion to enforce child support arrearages is barred by equitable estoppel and laches where she delayed 12 years to seek enforcement, and she lacks standing to enforce arrearages that accrued after the children reached majority, particularly where the
• Fitzgerald Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Baylor Publ'g Co., Inc.
  807 F.2d 1110· 2d Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the printer (World Color) was jointly and severally liable for statutory damages due to willful copyright infringement, and that actual damages must be calculated based on market value injury, not contract performance.
• In re Special March 1981 Grand Jury. Appeal of Almond Pharmacy, Inc.
  753 F.2d 575· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-23 ·cited 21×
  The court held that while the district court erred in releasing grand jury records without notice to the owners, the pharmacies are not entitled to relief because they have adequate alternative remedies in state proceedings and the equitable relief sought is extraordinary.
• W. R. Grace & Co., Inc. v. W. U. S. Indus., Inc.
  608 F.2d 1214· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that Grace committed fraud on the Patent Office by submitting false affidavits, rendering its patent unenforceable and justifying the dismissal of infringement actions and the award of attorney's fees.
• Simkins v. Luisa Victoria Simkins
  219 So. 2d 724· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-03-04 ·cited 21×
  The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination cannot be conditioned by any penalty, including loss of the right to prosecute a divorce suit; a court may not require a litigant to answer discovery questions about conduct that could incriminate him under penalty of dismi
• Brooker v. Smith
  108 So. 2d 790· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-02-04 ·cited 21×
  This is an interlocutory appeal from orders in a taxpayer suit seeking to compel a city mayor to account for allegedly improperly received funds and to engage in business transactions with the city in violation of the municipal charter. The court addresses three main issues: the
• Todd v. Todd
  56 So. 2d 441· Fla.· 1951-12-21 ·cited 21×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a divorce decree granted to the husband, finding he did not have "clean hands" to seek divorce on grounds of his wife's habitual intemperance, as he encouraged her drinking. The court granted the wife a divorce on her counterclaim for extreme cr
• Harper v. Hoecherl
  153 Fla. 29· Fla.· 1943-05-21 ·cited 21×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's injunction that had restrained a painters' union from disciplining members who violated union bylaws by using spray guns on a government construction project. The court held that unions have broad authority to enforce their rules
• Pujals Ex rel. El Rey de Los Habanos v. Garcia
  777 F. Supp. 2d 1322· S.D. Fla.· 2011-03-28 ·cited 20×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses, striking some for legal insufficiency and treating others as specific denials.
• Quality Roof Servs., Inc. v. Intervest Nat'l Bank
  21 So. 3d 883· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-10-28 ·cited 20×
  The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend the answer to assert the affirmative defense of unclean hands, as the defense was sufficiently pled and not futile.
• Barco Holdings, LLC v. Terminal Inv. Corp.
  967 So. 2d 281· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-09-26 ·cited 20×
  Barco Holdings appeals four summary judgment orders arising from a complex dispute over Terminal Island property rights. The central issue was whether Bernuth Agencies could exercise a purchase option in its lease after failing to exercise a right of first refusal, and whether Be
• Castle v. Cohen
  840 F.2d 173· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-11 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of specific performance for the stock sale agreement but vacated the dismissal of the RICO counterclaim due to procedural error.
• Codex Corp. v. Milgo Elec. Corp.
  717 F.2d 622· 1st Cir.· 1983-08-02 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the invalidity of the Whang '023 and Ragsdale '503 patents, found the Vilips '194 patent obvious, and upheld the award of attorney fees to Codex.
• Sven Tveter v. AB Turn-O-Matic
  633 F.2d 831· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 20×
  The patent for the ticket dispenser is invalid due to obviousness, but the trademark and unfair competition claims are valid because the appellant infringed the trademark and engaged in deceptive practices by copying and misrepresenting the product's origin.
• NEW England Patriots Football Club, Inc. v. Univ. OF Colo.
  592 F.2d 1196· 1st Cir.· 1979-02-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar enjoining state university agents from unlawful and tortious conduct in seeking to contract with a coach, and that the coach is not an indispensable party to the suit.
• Norton Co. v. Carborundum Co.
  530 F.2d 435· 1st Cir.· 1976-02-03 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's narrow construction of the patent, finding that Carborundum's 'Big Red' product infringed the patent as construed, and that Norton's alleged misconduct did not render the narrowly construed patent unenforceable.
• Gaudiosi v. Mellon
  269 F.2d 873· 3d Cir.· 1959-06-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that premature appeals must be dismissed, and that the doctrine of 'unclean hands' bars equitable relief for a plaintiff who engaged in malicious and intimidating conduct during a proxy contest, even if the issue was not raised by the defendant in the lower court.
• Iowa Farmers Union (Formerly Farmers Educ. & Co-operative Union of Am. v. Farmers' Educ. & Coop. Union of Am.
  247 F.2d 809· 8th Cir.· 1957-08-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction under the Lanham Act because the unfair competition was substantially related to trademark infringement.
• Vincent v. Suni-Citrus Prods. Co.
  215 F.2d 305· 5th Cir.· 1954-08-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the patents in suit were invalid due to anticipation by prior art and failure to meet the standard of patentable invention, and affirmed the district court's judgment.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Bulldog Elec. Prods. Co.
  179 F.2d 139· 4th Cir.· 1950-01-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Westinghouse purged itself of any illegal conduct by waiving price maintenance provisions, thus entitling it to protection of its patent rights in an infringement suit.
• Standard OIL Co. v. Clark
  163 F.2d 917· 2d Cir.· 1947-09-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that S.I.G. is entitled to grant licenses under the patents, but not to full title, due to restrictive provisions in the Four Party Agreement.
• MAS v. Coca-Cola Co.
  163 F.2d 505· 4th Cir.· 1947-08-20 ·cited 20×
  A plaintiff seeking a patent through an equitable suit under R.S. 4915 will be denied relief if they have engaged in fraudulent conduct, such as forgery and perjury, related to the very matter in controversy, regardless of the defendant's conduct.
• Am. Coop. Serum Ass'n v. Anchor Serum Co.
  153 F.2d 907· 7th Cir.· 1946-03-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding customer complaints was improper and that the issue of whether the plaintiff was compelled to reduce its prices presented a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law.