Matthews v. Matthews (1969)

green · 32 citation events across 5 courts. Showing the 12 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Yellow 1 Green 11

Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

196919972026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

yellow Calder v. Uwanawich (1984)

But See · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: but see

But see Matthews v. Matthews, 222 So.2d 282 (where the court held that where the record conclusively showed that the plaintiff discovered the fraud more than three years before instituting the suit, the suit was thus limitations barred as a matter of law, but in dictum stated that the question of whether the plaintiff should have discovered the fraud was one of law to be determined by the court).

green Cyril M. HUDAK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ECONOMIC RESEARCH ANALYSTS, INC., and Richard W. McIntyre, Defendants-… (1974)

Rule Authority · 5th Cir.

Section 95.11(5) (d) provides that a cause of action for fraud shall not “be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the *1002 facts constituting the fraud.” The state courts have adopted a so-called “objective” standard, charging the plaintiff with “knowledge of facts which would have been discovered in exercise of due diligence.” Matthews v. Matthews, 222 So.2d 282, 284 (Fl.App., 2d Dist. 1969), quoting Azalea Meats, Inc. v. Muscat, S.D.Fl.1965…

green Korman v. Iglesias (1993)

Rule Authority · S.D. Fla. · 2 citations in this opinion

Discovery of the facts sufficient to trigger the limitations period is determined by an objective standard and “ ‘means knowledge of facts which would have been discovered in ex.ercise of due diligence’ Mat thews v. Matthews, 222 So.2d 282, 284 (Fla. 2d Dist.Ct.App.1969).

green Beltran v. Vincent P. Miraglia, M.D., P.A. (2013)

Quote Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

See Davis v. Monahan, 832 So.2d 708 (Fla.2002) (holding unjust enrichment claim alleging misappropriation of funds by family members for transactions occurring from 1990 to 1992 barred by statute of limitations as complaint not filed until 1997); Swafford v. Schweitzer, 906 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding statute of limitations limited plaintiffs right to recover for improvements to real property to those improvements made within four years of filing of complaint); M…

“[I]n quantum meruit [claim for services] and quantum valebant [claim for goods], the cause of action accrued when the services have been performed or the property transferred.”

green Moneyhun v. Vital Industries, Inc. (1993)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

See Venditti-Siravo, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 418 So.2d 1251, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Matthews v. Matthews, 222 So.2d 282, 285-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).

green Knight v. EF Hutton and Co., Inc. (1990)

Rule Authority · M.D. Fla.

Matthews v. Matthews, 222 So.2d 282, 284 (Fla.2d DCA 1969).

green Birnholz v. Steisel (1981)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

As in the case of the general Florida rule concerning quantum meruit claims for services rendered, Matthews v. Matthews, 222 So.2d 282, 286 (Fla.2d DCA 1969), [5] the universally accepted doctrine as to attorney's fees is that the statute of limitations accrues when the particular services are completed.

green Merle Wood and Associates, Inc. v. Trinity Yachhts, LLC (2013)

Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see · 4 citations in this opinion

See Matthews v. Matthews, 222 So.2d 282, 283-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).

green Merle Wood & Associates, Inc. v. Trinity Yachts, LLC (2012)

Cited (see also) · S.D. Fla. · signal: see, e.g.

See e.g., Matthews v. Matthews, 222 So.2d 282 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969) (finding that plaintiffs cause of action for quantum meruit accrued when plaintiffs services to the corporation were rendered); Moneyhun v. Vital Indus., 611 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (finding that the statute of limitations for plaintiffs quantum meruit action began running when plaintiff left the company for whom he had been performing consulting services).

finding that plaintiffs cause of action for quantum meruit accrued when plaintiffs services to the corporation were rendered

green Smith v. Smith (1990)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Matthews v. Matthews, 133 So.2d 91 (Fla.1961), appeal after remand, 222 So.2d 282 (Fla.1969); Graessle v. Schultz, 90 So.2d 37 (Fla.1956); Biscayne Blvd.

green Baya v. Hodges (1977)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Matthews v. Matthews, 222 So.2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).

green Codding v. Phillips (1974)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Matthews v. Matthews, supra. Therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.