CLEMENTINE R. THUMBTZEN ET AL., PETITIONERS,

v.

B. W. DEESE ET UX., RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By

• First Fla. Bank, N.A. v. MAX Mitchell & Co., 558 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1990)
  …also Aluma Kraft Mfg. Co. v. Elmer Fox & Co., 493 S.W. 2d 378 (Mo.Ct.App.1973). There are four prior Florida cases which have specifically addressed the issue before us. In Investment Corp. v. Buchman, 208 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 216 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1968), the plaintiff entered into a contract to buy corporate stock. Because the plaintiff had only seen an uncertified financial statement of the corporation, the contract included a provision under which the corporation would provide a certif…
• Gordon v. Etue, Wardlaw & Co., P.A., 511 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
  …ors Tax Sheltered Real Estate, Ltd. v. Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath, 370 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1980); Investment Corporation of Florida v. Buchman, 208 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 216 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1968); Nortek, Inc. v. Alexander Grant & Company, 532 F. 2d 1013 (5th Cir.1976).3 The Supreme Court has modified the privity principle only slightly and only as to ab-stractors in First American Title Insurance Company, Inc. v. First Title Serv…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Invs. TAX Sheltered Real Est., Ltd. v. Laventhol, 370 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
  …use is based upon the state of the law in Florida pertaining to liability of an accountant to a third party not in privity of contract with the accountant. In Investment Corp. of Florida v. Buchman, 208 So. 2d 291 (Fla.2d DCA1968),6 cert. dismissed, 216 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1968), the court rejected the contention that an accountant could be held liable for negligence as one who by profession supplies information for the guidance of others in business transactions, determining that in the absence of privity of con…