NORTEK, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ALEXANDER GRANT & COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS-THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES-APPELLANTS, V. SANI DISTRIBUTORS, INC., ET AL., THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

5th Cir. | 1976-08-05
No. 75-1030
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, TUTTLE and GEE, Circuit Judges.
536 F.2d 624 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1976) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Appellant correctly asserts that the Florida blue-sky law’s two-year statute of limitation does not bar its cause of action for gross negligence. This is governed by the Florida fraud statute of limitation, and appellant alleges that its complaint falls within this three-year period. However, the trial court found conclusively that defendant’s action did not constitute fraud or gross negligence, a finding with which we agree. We, therefore, put aside all problems of date of discovery and decline to consider further whether the negligence here was so gross as to constitute constructive fraud. See State Street Trust Co. v. Ernst, 278 N.Y. 104, 15 N.E. 2d 416 (1938). The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Summer v. Land & Leisure, Inc., 664 F.2d 965 (5th Cir. 1981)
  • Nortek, Inc. v. Alexander Grant & Co., 532 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir. 1976)
  • Bryne v. Gulfstream First Bank & Tr. Co., 528 F. Supp. 692 (S.D. Fla. 1981)
    …t to federal section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 causes of action. The Fifth Circuit’s most recent pronouncement on this issue was in 1976 in Nortek, Inc. v. Alexander Grant & Co., 532 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir. 1976), rehearing denied per curiam, 536 F.2d 624 (5th Cir. 1976) (selecting the Fraud limitations period for the gross negligence claim, but not challenging the two year limitation period previously selected for the federal securities claim). 3 The court in that case applied the two year lim…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw