Wrongful Attachment

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

• de la Vallina v. de la Vallena
  90 Fla. 905· Fla.· 1926-01-05 ·cited 120×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's order granting a new trial unless the plaintiff accepted a remittitur. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in determining the jury's verdict was excessive.
• Folsom Inv. Co., Inc. v. Maxie R. Moore
  681 F.2d 1032· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-06 ·cited 50×
  A private party invoking a presumptively valid state attachment statute is entitled to good faith immunity from monetary liability under § 1983, and res judicata does not bar a claim if the constitutional validity of the attachment was not litigated in state court.
• Davis v. Peerless Ins. Co.
  255 F.2d 534· D.C. Cir.· 1958-03-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a plaintiff suing on an attachment bond is limited to recovering actual costs and damages sustained, not the full penal sum, and that the trial court erred in concluding there was no statutory right of action.
• Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin
  851 F.2d 1321· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 31×
  The plurality opinion held that private defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in a section 1983 action. The dissenting judges disagreed, arguing that qualified immunity should not extend to private actors.
• Roth v. Ilene Pritikin
  787 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees under the Copyright Act because the plaintiff's factual claim, while not ultimately successful, was not shown to be baseless, frivolous, or in bad faith at the time of the initial decision. H
• Pujol v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
  829 F.2d 1201· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing under RICO because his alleged injuries were not caused by the predicate acts, but affirmed dismissal of claims for Bonelli and the conjugal partnership except for Bonelli's independent claims of invasion of privacy, conversion, a
• Duncan v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck
  844 F.2d 1261· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 24×
  Private parties acting under color of state law are not entitled to good faith immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but may assert a good faith defense.
• Myron B. Susman v. Schuyler
  328 So. 2d 30· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-02-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that jury verdicts for slander of title and malicious interference with contractual relations were supported by sufficient evidence, but the denial of attorney fees for removing a cloud on title was error.
• Ross v. Peck Iron & Metal Co., Inc.
  264 F.2d 262· 4th Cir.· 1959-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state claims for wrongful attachment, abuse of process, conspiracy, or wrongful dishonor of cashier's checks, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Warshaw-Seattle, Inc. v. Clark
  85 So. 2d 623· Fla.· 1955-12-14 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether an attorney for a defendant in an attachment case could intervene in the main contract action to recover fees after the plaintiff and defendant settled the underlying dispute without the attorney's consent. The court held that intervent
• Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek
  412 F.2d 1174· 9th Cir.· 1969-06-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was lacking because complete diversity of citizenship did not exist between the plaintiff and all named defendants, and the claims were not separate and independent for removal purposes.
• Armada Coal Exp., Inc. v. Interbulk, Ltd.
  726 F.2d 1566· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-16 ·cited 15×
  The court held that claims for wrongful attachment and conversion arising from a foreign attachment writ are not subject to arbitration under a broad arbitration clause in a charter party, and that diversity jurisdiction exists despite imperfect pleading.
• Pinsky v. Duncan
  898 F.2d 852· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-09 ·cited 12×
  Connecticut's statute authorizing prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice, opportunity for a hearing, or requiring a bond, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Pujol v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
  877 F.2d 132· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Subsidiary was not an indispensable party under Rule 19(b) because its interests were adequately represented by Shearson, and allegations of misconduct against the Subsidiary did not necessitate its joinder. The court also held that Bonelli's second cause
• Fla. Transp. Co. v. Dixie Sightseeing Tours, Inc.
  139 So. 2d 175· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-03-27 ·cited 10×
  Florida Transportation Co. and its surety Continental Casualty Co. appealed a judgment for damages on attachment bonds issued in two prior lawsuits against Dixie Sightseeing Tours, Inc. The court affirmed liability but reversed the damages award, holding that recovery on attachme
• Victrix S.S. Co., S.A. v. Salen DRY Cargo A.B.
  825 F.2d 709· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 9×
  The court held that comity requires deference to Swedish bankruptcy proceedings, vacating the attachment of funds and affirming the award of attorney's fees for wrongful attachment.
• United Forest Prods. Co. v. Baxter
  452 F.2d 11· 8th Cir.· 1971-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instruction on waiver, which stated that entering into a new contract or receiving a substantial concession after discovering fraud is presumed to be a waiver, was not erroneous, even with the inclusion of the word 'presumed,' and affirm
• Martin v. Martin
  196 So. 2d 26· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-02-24 ·cited 7×
  Eva Rue Martin, as executrix of her husband's estate, sued her former daughter-in-law Betty Jo Martin on promissory notes and obtained an attachment on Betty Jo's boat. Betty Jo filed a counterclaim for damages resulting from the wrongful attachment. The court held that such dama
• Furness Withy (Chartering), Inc. v. World Energy Sys. Assocs., Inc.
  772 F.2d 802· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the damages award to HSC-TCI was improper because it did not prevail on its counterclaims, and the bond proceeds were to be distributed according to the terms of the court's order and Admiralty Rule E(7).
• Eddie S.S. Co. Ltd. v. P.T. Karana Line
  739 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The district court had the power to issue the mandatory injunction in admiralty, and the exercise of that power was not an abuse of discretion.
• Wash. Bldg. Servs., Inc. v. United Janitorial Servs., Inc.
  352 F.2d 678· D.C. Cir.· 1965-07-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a surety on a bond to release an attachment cannot challenge the validity of the attachment after the bond is posted, as posting the bond waives irregularities, and the attachment affidavit was sufficient.
• Lynch v. Call
  261 F.2d 130· 10th Cir.· 1958-10-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact regarding the plaintiff's ability to mitigate damages by renting the attached property precluded summary judgment.
• First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. A.L. Hollingsworth, Jr.
  931 F.2d 1295· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in barring a defendant from testifying, requiring a new trial on the RICO claim against him. It also affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful attachment counterclaim due to speculative damages.
• Ritter v. Miami Marine Agency, Inc.
  133 So. 2d 107· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-09-28 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's judgment awarding damages for wrongful attachment. The court found that the procedure used to assess damages was improper, as it should have been an independent action at law rather than a summary proceeding.
• Barbachano v. Allen
  192 F.2d 836· 9th Cir.· 1951-10-31 ·cited 4×
  A debt arising from wrongful attachment coupled with slander of title, which caused delay and loss, constitutes a willful and malicious injury to property and is therefore not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
• Kirsch v. Barnes
  263 F.2d 692· 9th Cir.· 1959-02-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the action for slander of title was not seasonably filed, as it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to such claims.
• Triton Container Int'l Ltd. v. M/S Itapage
  774 F. Supp. 1349· M.D. Fla.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the arrest and attachment of the vessel were not wrongful, and the defendant's motion to vacate was denied.
• Mr. F. Calcagni v. Mamber
  262 So. 2d 467· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an independent action is required for wrongful attachment claims and that the awarded attorney fees for dissolving the attachment were inadequate.
• George Cohen Sons & Co., Ltd. v. Koch
  376 F.2d 629· 1st Cir.· 1967-05-01 ·cited 2×
  A party injured by a tortious attachment must take reasonable steps to mitigate damages; damages are not recoverable for harm that could have been avoided by due care. The attaching party is liable for damages during the period after disclosure of the error when the property coul
• Godfrey P. Schmidt v. Smith
  344 F.2d 168· D.C. Cir.· 1965-02-04 ·cited 2×
• Furness Withy (Chartering), Inc. v. World Energy Sys. Assocs., Inc.
  854 F.2d 410· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 1×
  A claim for conversion arising from a wrongful attachment in maritime law requires proof of bad faith by the party obtaining the attachment.
• Mirage Yacht, Inc. v. A 2013 63 Marquis Yachts recreational vessel
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-13
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss, and dismissing several counts of the amended counterclaims.
• Lael N. Clark v. Flagship Bank OF Melbourne
  368 So. 2d 377· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-02-14
  The court reversed a summary judgment in a wrongful attachment case, holding that genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether probable cause existed for the attachment precluded summary disposition. The bank had attached the plaintiff's property in 1967 based on alleged f