HAMILTON ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES; FITZGERALD V. UNITED STATES; KOVACH V. UNITED STATES; AND LEAHU V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (38 total)

• Clausell v. Hobart Corp., 515 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1987)
  …Court noted that “[o]ur cases have clearly established that ‘[a] person has no property, no vested interest, in any rule of the common [*1276] law.’ ” See also Ducharme v. Merrill-National Laboratories, 574 F. 2d 1307, 1309 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 1002, 99 S.Ct. 612, 58 L.Ed.2d 677 (1978) (“it is well settled that a plaintiff has no vested right in any tort claim for damages under state law”). More recently, in Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982), the…
• City OF Winter Haven v. Allen, 541 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
  …stitute for the common-law or state tort law remedies it replaces.” Duke Power Co., 438 U.S. at 88, 98 S.Ct. at 2638 (citations omitted). [*133] Similarly, while Ducharme v. Merrill-National Laboratories, 574 F. 2d 1307 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1002, 99 S.Ct. 612, 58 L.Ed.2d 677 (1978), held that a claimant had no vested right in any tort claim for damages under state law, it did so only in the context of the federal Swine Flu Act that preempted existing state remedies pertaining to the subject…
• Daniel Weingrad, M.D. v. Miles, 29 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
  …pecifically quoted from the following eases in determining whether Clausell possessed a vested right to pursue a common law tort action to recover damages. Ducharme v. Merrill-National Laboratories, 574 F. 2d 1307, 1309 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1002, 99 S.Ct. 612, 58 L.Ed.2d 677 (1978) (holding that: “[i]t is well settled that a plaintiff has no vested right in any tort claim for damages under state law” (emphasis added)); Lamb v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 631 F.Supp. 1144, 1149 (S.D.F…