Smith v. 2001 South Dixie Highway, Inc. (2004)

green · 26 citation events across 6 courts. Showing the 11 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 11

Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

200420152026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Christopher Ounjian v. Globoforce, Inc. (2023)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

The “actual damages” required for a FDUTPA claim have been deﬁned as “‘the diﬀerence in the market value of the product or service in the condition in which it was delivered and its market USCA11 Case: 22-12590 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2023 Page: 13 of 16 22-12590 Opinion of the Court 13 value in the condition in which it should have been delivered ac- cording to the contract of the parties.’” Smith v. 2001 S. Dixie High- way, Inc., 872 So. 2d 992, 994 (Fla. Dist.

quoting Rol- lins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So. 2d 580, 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

green City First Mortg. Corp. v. Barton (2008)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) provides for a civil cause of action for "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ง 501.204(1), Fla. Stat. (2005); Smith v. 2001 S. Dixie Highway, Inc., 872 So.2d 992, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

green MORGAN v. ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF FLORIDA, LLC. (2021)

Quote Authority · S.D. Fla.

Ct. App. 2010); see Rollins, 951 So. 2d at 869 (“under FDUTPA, ‘actual damages’ do not include consequential damages”); Smith v. 2001 South Dixie Highway, Inc., 872 So. 2d 992, 994 (Fla. Dist.

“Actual damages, as pertaining to FDUTPA, does not include actual consequential damages.”

green GE Transportation Parts, LLC v. Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC (2021)

Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.

FDUTPA allows recovery only of “actual damages.” Smith v. 2001 S. Dixie Highway, Inc., 872 So. 2d 992, 994 (Fla. Dist.

quoting Fla. Stat. § 501.211 (2)

green Dragon Jade International, LTD v. Ultroid, LLC (2020)

Rule Authority · M.D. Fla.

Actual damages do not include “actual consequential damages”, “nominal damages, speculative losses, or compensation for subjective feelings of disappointment.” Smith v. 2001 S. Dixie Highway, Inc., 872 So. 2d 992, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Rollins, Inc., 951 So. 2d at 873 ).

quoting Rollins, Inc., 951 So. 2d at 873

green GEN3 MARKETING LEP v. ELLA PARADIS, INC. (2020)

Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.

Damages under FDUTPA can include ‘the difference in the market value of the product or service in the condition in which it was delivered and its market value in the condition in which it should have been delivered.” Smith v. 2001 S. Dixie Highway, Inc., 872 So. 2d 992, 994 (Fla. Dist.

green Gomez v. Fradin (2010)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Smith v. 2001 S. Dixie Highway, Inc., 872 So.2d 992, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

green Dorestin v. Hollywood Imports, Inc. (2010)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

See § 501.201, Fla. Stat. (2008). .Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc., 468 So.2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (denying, as special or consequential damages, repair costs for termite damage to house purchased in reliance on false termite inspection certificate); Rodriguez v. Recovery Performance & Marine, LLC, 38 So.3d 178, 178-81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (denying recovery of down payment and loan payments towards purchase of jet boat as outside the actual damage measure of the market …

loss of employment is an indirect and consequential result of a FDUTPA violation; therefore, reinstatement of employment is not an available remedy under the Act

green Randy Hetrick v. Ideal Image Development Corp. (2010)

Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see

See Smith v. 2001 South Dixie Highway, Inc., 872 So.2d 992, 994 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004).

green Rodriguez v. Recovery Performance & Marine, LLC (2010)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Smith v.2001 S. Dixie Highway, Inc., 872 So.2d 992, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Orkin Exterminating Co. v. DelGuidice, 790 So.2d 1158, 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Urling, 468 So.2d at 454 ; see also Fort Lauderdale Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Corgnati, 715 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (where plaintiff alleged violation of FDUTPA in the purchase of his car, consequential damages in the form of car loan payments were not recoverable).

green Collins v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004)

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

In the context of FDUTPA, "actual damages" have long been defined as "`the difference in the market value of the product or service in the condition in which it was delivered and its market value in the condition in which it should have been delivered according to the contract of the parties.'" Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So.2d 580, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (quoting Raye v. Fred Oakley Motors Inc., 646 S.W.2d 288, 290 (Tex.Ct.App.1983)); see Smith v. 2001 S. Dixie Highway, In…