At page 447 “the more extreme or even far-fetched is the asserted theory of liability, the more important it is that the conceptual legal theories be explored and assayed in the light of actual facts, not a pleader's supposition.” · 25 citing cases
- Madaio, Christopher v. United States, No. 1:25-cv-20300 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2025).(It is perhaps ironic that the more extreme or even far- fetched is the asserted theory of liability, the more important it is that the conceptual legal theories be explored and assayed in the light of actual facts, not…)
- David Timothy Moore v. Georgia Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, No. 23-12468 (11th Cir. Apr. 24, 2024).(It is perhaps ironic that the more extreme or even far-fetched is the as- serted theory of liability, the more important it is that the concep- tual legal theories be explored and assayed in the light of actual facts,…)
- Hayden v. Alabama Dep't of Pub. Saf., 506 F. Supp. 2d 944 (M.D. Ala. 2007).(It is perhaps ironic that the more extreme or even far-fetched is the asserted theory of liability, the more important it is that the conceptual legal theories be explored and assayed in the light of actual facts, not…)
- Coyer v. Hemmer, 901 F. Supp. 872 (D.N.J. 1995).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir.1963).
- Thomas v. New York City, 814 F. Supp. 1139 (E.D.N.Y 1993).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir.1963); see generally 5A Wright & Miller § 1357, at 341-43.
- New England Insulation Co. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 522 N.E.2d 997 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963).
- Virginia Hosp. Ass'n v. Baliles, 830 F.2d 1308 (4th Cir. 1987).(admonishing caution in granting motion to dismiss on pleading asserting new, novel theories)
- James Clark v. Amoco Prod. Co., Etc., 794 F.2d 967 (5th Cir. 1986).Co., 313 F.2d 445 at 447 (5th Cir.1963).
- Capazzoli v. Holzwasser, 490 N.E.2d 420 (Mass. 1986). Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir.1963).
- Ass'n of Haystack Prop. Owners, Inc. v. Sprague, 494 A.2d 122 (Vt. 1985).Shull v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963) ; Sherman v. St.
Show 15 more citing cases
- Pellegrino v. O'Neill, 480 A.2d 476 (Conn. 1984).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963); Dart Drug Corporation v. Corning Glass Works, 480 F. Sup. 1091, 1098, n.10 (D.
- United States v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 570 F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Tex. 1983).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir.1963).
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 444 N.E.2d 1301 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (1969 & Supp. 1982); Coolidge Bank & Trust Co., supra. Applying these tests we cannot conclude that it is beyond doubt that the appellant can…
- Caddell v. Singer, 652 F.2d 393 (4th Cir. 1981). Under such circumstances, it is “important . . . that the conceptual legal theories be explored and assayed in the light of actual facts, not a pleader’s supposition.” Shull v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963).
- Phyllis Sosa, Dennis Sosa & Alicia Sosa Sierra v. Melvin G. Coleman, Sheriff of Orange Cnty., or His Successor, 646 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1981).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963).
- City of Gainesville v. Florida Power & Light Co., 488 F. Supp. 1258 (S.D. Fla. 1980).E. g., Banco Continental v. Curtiss National Bank, 406 F.2d 510, 514 (5th Cir. 1969); Barber v. Motor Vessel “Blue Cat," 372 F.2d 626, 627 (5th Cir. 1967); City of Fort Lauderdale v. East Coast Asphalt Corp., 329 F.2d 871, 872 (5th Cir. 19…
- Lavoie v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., Inc., 374 So. 2d 310 (Ala. 1979).Shull v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963); Trabits v. First National Bank of Mobile, supra .
- Adato v. Kagan, 599 F.2d 1111 (2d Cir. 1979).Shull v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963).
- Adato v. Kagan, 599 F.2d 1111 (2d Cir. 1979).Shull v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963).
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Co., 313 F. 2d 445, 447 (CA5 1963). [8] In an affidavit filed in the Court of Appeals, Gamble states that he has been transferred to another prison, placed in solitary confinement, and denied any medical care at all.
- Trabits v. First Nat'l Bank of Mobile, 323 So. 2d 353 (Ala. 1975).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5 Cir., 1963) (emphasis added).
- Bush v. Masiello, 55 F.R.D. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir, 1963).
- Stewart v. Arrington Constr. Co., 446 P.2d 895 (Idaho 1968).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963). 1A Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure 75 (Supp. 1967).
- Hylton Harman, Tr. of the Coffeyville Loan & Inv. Co., Inc. v. The Valley Nat'l Bank of Arizona, 339 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1964).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963).
- Corsican Prods., a P'ship v. Peter Pitchess, Individually & as Sheriff of the Cnty. of Los Angeles, State of California, 338 F.2d 441 (9th Cir. 1964).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 1963).
At page 446 cited at this page · 3 citing cases
- Doe v. Walker, 193 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 1999).Co., 313 F.2d 445, 446-47 (5th Cir.1963); Branch v. FDIC, 825 F.Supp. 384, 397-98 (D.Mass.1993); see generally 5A Wright & Miller Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 1357, at 340-44 (2d ed.1990).
- Ouida J. Weissinger A/K/A Ouida Boyd & Mrs. George Boyd v. United States, 423 F.2d 782 (5th Cir. 1968). Co., 313 F.2d 445, 446 (5th Cir. 1963).
- Ingalls v. Neufeld, 487 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972).See Shull v. Pilot Life Insurance Company, 5 Cir., 313 F.2d 445, 446-447 [3-5] [6,7].
Other citing cases
- Sutton v. Duke, 176 S.E.2d 161 (N.C. 1970).
v.
PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
This diversity suit was to recover for personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff — the Assured under a life insurance policy — allegedly caused by the Defendant-Insurer having changed the named beneficiary without the Assured’s consent and in violation of the express policy terms. The Defendant urges that as a matter of Florida substantive law, there is no liability for personal injury unaccompanied by bodily contact arising from a tortious violation of a contract unless the “act is such as to reasonably imply malice, or where, from the entire want of care of attention to duty, or great indifference to the persons, property, or rights of others, such malice will be imputed as would justify the assessment of exemplary or punitive damages.” Kirksey v. Jernigan, 1950, Fla., 45 So.2d 188, 189, 17 A.L.R.2d 766. This legal standard is developed in these cases. International Ocean Telegraph Co. v. Saunders, 1893, 32 Fla. 434,14 So. 148, 21 L.R.A. 810; Dunahoo v. Bess, 1941, 146 Fla. 182, 200 So. 541; Crane v. Loftin, 1954, Fla., 70 So.2d 574; Griffith v. Shamrock Village, 1957, Fla., 94 So.2d 854; Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Fla., 1958, Fla., 100 So.2d 396; Clark v. Choctawhatchee Elec. Co-Op., 1958, Fla., 107 So.2d 609; Kimple v. Riedel, 1961, Fla. App., 133 So.2d 437. Accepting for present purposes this reading of Florida law, we nevertheless conclude that the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6). So long as it stands this dismissal with prejudice is res judicata and effectually bars any effort, in any court, at any time to find out what the true facts were.
This case is nowhere near ripe for determination that there can be no liability as a matter of Florida law. Like so many others, after the delay and expense of appeal, it must go back to determine whether the facts, as distinguished from the pleaded allegations, show a case meeting Florida principles. The allegations, though in the broad general terms permitted by the Rules, are quite sufficient to satisfy the test of Conley v. Gibson, 1957, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80. We repeat again[*447] what we have said before that within these very broad guide lines, a dismissal with prejudice on the “basis of bare bones pleadings is a tortuous thing.” Arthur H. Richland Co. v. Harper, 5 Cir., 1982, 302 F.2d 324, 325; Santiesteban v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 306 F.2d 9; Millet v. Godchaux Sugars, Inc., 5 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 264; Moritt v. Fine, 5 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 128, 132 (dissenting); Smoot v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 299 F.2d 525; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Central of Georgia Ry., 5 Cir., 1962, 305 F.2d 605; Camilla Cotton Oil Co. v. Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc., 5 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 162; Carss v. Outboard Marine, 5 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 690. We have, however, pointed out that this does not mean that there must necessarily be a full-blown trial. Exploiting the wonderful facility of pretrial discovery, the real facts can be ascertained and by motion for summary judgment (or other suitable device), the trial Court can determine whether as a matter of law there is any right of recovery on those facts. Carss v. Outboard Marine, 5 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 690; Camilla Cotton Oil Co. v. Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc., 5 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 162; Delesdernier v. O’Rourke & Warren Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 305 F.2d 929, 932.
This is not a return to technicalities out of harmony with the Rules. Quite the contrary, this makes sure that it is the real facts, not what the lawyers say (or conclude) will be the facts which determines the outcome. It is perhaps ironic that the more extreme or even far-fetched is the asserted theory of liability, the more important it is that the conceptual legal theories be explored and assayed in the light of actual facts, not a pleader’s supposition. If for no other reason, this affords some protection against the dubious extension of tort principles into new and unheard of fields resulting from a court opinion elucidating legal responsibilities as to facts which may never be.
Thus it is that a year later, this case must go back for determination of whether the real facts will come up to the pleader’s expectation.
Reversed and remanded.