ISMAEL R. DECARDENAS, APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS LIQUIDATOR FOR THE TRUST BANK, APPELLEE
ISMAEL R. DECARDENAS, APPELLANT,
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS LIQUIDATOR FOR THE TRUST BANK, APPELLEE
559 So. 2d 314
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1990)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447, 62 S.Ct. 676, 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942); FDIC v. McClanahan, 795 F. 2d 512 (5th Cir.1986); FDIC v. Investors Assocs. X., Ltd., 775 F. 2d 152 (6th Cir.1985); FDIC v. Berr, 643 F.Supp. 357 (D.Kan.1986); Scott v. NCNB Nat’l Bank of Fla., 489 So. 2d 221, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Realauction.com, LLC v. Grant St. Grp., Inc., 82 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…act” and that an appellate court may override a jury verdict only if there is “no competent substantial evidence” to support that verdict. Ruskin v. Ryan, 859 So. 2d 1218, 1219-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting MMH Venture v. Masterpiece Prods., Inc., 559 So. 2d 314, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)). Further, the evidence must be evaluated “in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and every reasonable inference deduced from the evidence must be indulged in [the] plaintiffs favor.” Am. Motors Corp. v. Ellis, 403 So.…
-
The HERTZ Corp. v. David Klein Mfg., Inc., 636 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…oes not clearly express the precise acts for which Hertz seeks to avoid liability. Further, the clause does not “clearly and unequivocally state that it releases [Hertz] from liability for its own negligence.” MMH Venture v. Masterpiece Prod., Inc., 559 So. 2d 314, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Thus, we can find no error in the trial court’s refusal to direct a verdict in Hertz’s favor. As to the cross-appeal, we decline to reverse the order denying Klein’s motion for additur. The record does not demonstrate that…
-
Ruskin v. Ryan, 859 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…was terminated and apparently earned a lower income than she had previously, there was no evidence that the Ruskins’ suit caused Ryan to have a diminished earning capacity. As the Third District stated in MMH Venture v. Masterpiece Products, Inc., 559 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA1990): [*1220] Despite the weight which our judicial system generally ascribes to a jury verdict, “[w]e are mindful ... that an appellate court should override a jury verdict when ‘there is no competent substantial evidence which sustai…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- D'Oench v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 315 U.S. 447 (U.S. 1942)
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. McCLANAHAN, 795 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1986)
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Invs. Assocs. X., Ltd., 775 F.2d 152 (6th Cir. 1985)
- Wilson v. State, 489 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Scott v. NCNB Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 489 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)