Vagueness and Indefiniteness

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

• Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp.
  302 So. 2d 404· Fla.· 1974-10-24 ·cited 178×
  Blackhawk and Machata lent their credit to Data Lease to facilitate Data Lease's purchase of bank stock, taking an option to acquire 25% of the shares for consideration tied to "cash-flow benefits" Data Lease would derive from the transaction. The Florida Supreme Court reversed t
• LEE v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
  552 F.2d 447· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the parol evidence rule did not bar proof of the oral agreement and that the agreement was not too vague to be enforceable, affirming the jury's verdict.
• Truly Nolen, Inc. v. Atlas Moving & Storage Warehouses, Inc.
  125 So. 2d 903· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-01-05 ·cited 28×
  Truly Nolen challenges a declaratory decree enforcing an advertising lease agreement with Atlas Moving & Storage. The appellate court reversed the decree, holding that the lease was unenforceable because it was fatally vague regarding the essential subject matter—the advertising
• Edmun Realty Corp. & A. E. Munyer v. Kearns
  158 Fla. 558· Fla.· 1947-01-28 ·cited 24×
  Edmun Realty Corporation and A. E. Munyer appeal a chancellor's denial of their motion to dismiss a bill of complaint seeking specific performance for the sale of real estate. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, holding that the plaintiff's allegations fail to establish an enforc
• Nestier Corp. v. Menasha Corporation-Lewisystems Division
  739 F.2d 1576· Fed. Cir.· 1984-08-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of equivalents, as there was no sufficient evidentiary basis presented by the appellant to support such an instruction. Furthermore, the court affirmed that procedural requirements
• Ginsberg Mach. Co., Inc. v. J. & H. Label Processing Corp.
  341 F.2d 825· 2d Cir.· 1965-02-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the alleged oral agreement and subsequent letter did not constitute an enforceable contract because they failed to meet the requirements of the New York Statute of Frauds and lacked essential terms.
• Cont'l Bank & Tr. Co. for the Lot Purchasers v. Am. Bonding Co.
  605 F.2d 1049· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 10×
  The surety is liable on the performance bonds, but the measure of damages awarded by the district court was erroneous and requires redetermination.
• Fincher v. Belk-Sawyer Co.
  127 So. 2d 130· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-02-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that provisions left for future agreement, such as the establishment of certain services and the amount of additional compensation, did not render the entire contract unenforceable because they were not essential to the core agreement.
• United States v. Lauer
  287 F.2d 633· 7th Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenges were moot, the burden was on him to prove exemption, the denial of acquittal motions in the jury's presence was not reversible error, and the government properly admitted exhibits and did not need to prove the existenc
• Ledford Gregory v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  764 F.2d 1437· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the existence of an oral contract, affirming the directed verdict for the defendant.
• Harris v. Louie L. Wainwright
  406 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-21 ·cited 8×
  The absence of counsel at arraignment in a capital case is a constitutional violation if there is a likelihood of prejudice, and the state bears the burden of disproving this likelihood.
• State v. Yzaguirre
  569 So. 2d 492· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-10-05 ·cited 7×
  In this capital sexual battery case, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of an amended information charging crimes against the defendant's minor daughter. The court held that dismissal based on vague time frames was improper unless the
• D. W. Winkelman Co., Inc. v. Barr
  178 F.2d 341· 6th Cir.· 1949-12-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the contract was sufficiently definite and enforceable, and that the termination clause did not render it a contract at will under Tennessee law when performance was otherwise satisfactory.
• In re Jennings
  133 F.2d 906· C.C.P.A.· 1943-02-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that article claims were patentable over the prior art, but method claims were invalid for vagueness and indefiniteness.
• Pasquale Thomas Leonetti v. State
  418 So. 2d 1192· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-09-01 ·cited 2×
  Pasquale Thomas Leonetti appealed his conviction for bookmaking under Florida Statute §849.25, challenging the sufficiency of the information filed against him. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, holding that the information was unconstitutionally vague a
• Yavitch v. Seewack
  323 F.2d 561· 9th Cir.· 1963-10-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court improperly considered issues and made findings regarding patents not properly before it, and that findings on the patents in issue lacked sufficient detail.
• Anderson & Brown Co. v. Anderson
  161 F.2d 974· 7th Cir.· 1947-05-23 ·cited 2×
  A contract is unenforceable for vagueness and indefiniteness if essential elements, such as price, are not ascertainable with reasonable certainty.
• Real Est. World Fla. Commercial, Inc. v. Gurkin
  943 So. 2d 270· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-11-22
  An oral brokerage agreement is enforceable if it provides a practicable method for determining compensation, even if the final sale price is subject to negotiation.
• Nuris Jimenez v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  619 So. 2d 405· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-06-01
• Culhane v. Clark
  162 F.2d 736· Emer. Ct. App.· 1947-06-18
  The court held that Maximum Price Regulation 193 applied to sales of warehouse receipts for whiskey, and the regulation was not void for vagueness or failure to state parity considerations.