English common law rule in Florida

1984Dicks v. Colonial Finance Corporation, 85 So.2d 874 (Fla. 1956); Commercial Credit Co. v. Parker, 101 Fla. 928 , 132 So. 640 (1931); Federal Insurance Company v. Mercer, 237 So.2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Harrison Motor Company, 151 So.2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); R.S.

1984Dicks v. Colonial Finance Corporation, 85 So.2d 874 (Fla. 1956); Commercial Credit Co. v. Parker, 101 Fla. 928 , 132 So. 640 (1931); Federal Insurance Company v. Mercer, 237 So.2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Harrison Motor Company, 151 So.2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); R.S.

1984Dicks v. Colonial Finance Corporation, 85 So.2d 874 (Fla. 1956); Commercial Credit Co. v. Parker, 101 Fla. 928 , 132 So. 640 (1931); Federal Insurance Company v. Mercer, 237 So.2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Harrison Motor Company, 151 So.2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); R.S.

1984Dicks v. Colonial Finance Corporation, 85 So.2d 874 (Fla. 1956); Commercial Credit Co. v. Parker, 101 Fla. 928 , 132 So. 640 (1931); Federal Insurance Company v. Mercer, 237 So.2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Harrison Motor Company, 151 So.2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); R.S.

1984Dicks v. Colonial Finance Corporation, 85 So.2d 874 (Fla. 1956); Commercial Credit Co. v. Parker, 101 Fla. 928 , 132 So. 640 (1931); Federal Insurance Company v. Mercer, 237 So.2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Harrison Motor Company, 151 So.2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); R.S.

1982See 2 F. Harper & F. James, The Law of Torts § 29.8 (1956); Vaughn, The Personal Accountability of Public Employees, 25 Am.U.L.Rev. 85, 87 (1975). [8] This broad liability began to be reduced during the 1930's which coincided with the massive expansion of governmental agencies and services, as well as with the beginning of governments waiving sovereign immunity. [9] The seminal Florida case of this era is First National Bank v. Filer, 107 Fla. 526 , 145 So. 204 (1933), which defined the personal liability of public servants: [W]here the law imposes upon a public officer the performance of mini

1982See 2 F. Harper & F. James, The Law of Torts § 29.8 (1956); Vaughn, The Personal Accountability of Public Employees, 25 Am.U.L.Rev. 85, 87 (1975). [8] This broad liability began to be reduced during the 1930's which coincided with the massive expansion of governmental agencies and services, as well as with the beginning of governments waiving sovereign immunity. [9] The seminal Florida case of this era is First National Bank v. Filer, 107 Fla. 526 , 145 So. 204 (1933), which defined the personal liability of public servants: [W]here the law imposes upon a public officer the performance of mini

1981Appellees argue for a required acceptance of a resignation, directing our attention to Edwards v. United States, 103 U.S. 471 , 26 L.Ed. 314 (1880), as authority for application of the English common law rule.

1981Appellees argue for a required acceptance of a resignation, directing our attention to Edwards v. United States, 103 U.S. 471 , 26 L.Ed. 314 (1880), as authority for application of the English common law rule.

1970It is clear that the old English common law rule regarding the roaming of cattle was therefore in effect in Florida until it was changed by the enactment of the statute of June 11, 1823 (carried forward into § 588.03, F.S., now repealed, and F.S. §§ 588.01, 588.07 and 588.08 F.S.A.) and other statutes referred to in Savannah, supra. In Blood v. Hunt, 1929, 97 Fla. 551 , 121 So. 886, 890 , Justice Whitfield, (who wrote a commentary on the Legal Historical Background of the State of Florida in the 1920’s, Compiled General Laws of Florida, 1927, Compact Edition, pp. 1-191; Revised by Allen Morris

1970It is clear that the old English common law rule regarding the roaming of cattle was therefore in effect in Florida until it was changed by the enactment of the statute of June 11, 1823 (carried forward into § 588.03, F.S., now repealed, and F.S. §§ 588.01, 588.07 and 588.08 F.S.A.) and other statutes referred to in Savannah, supra. In Blood v. Hunt, 1929, 97 Fla. 551 , 121 So. 886, 890 , Justice Whitfield, (who wrote a commentary on the Legal Historical Background of the State of Florida in the 1920’s, Compiled General Laws of Florida, 1927, Compact Edition, pp. 1-191; Revised by Allen Morris

1969The District Court stated: "The Supreme Court of Florida in Waller v. First Savings & Trust Co., 103 Fla. 1025 , 138 So. 780 (1931), held that while at English common law no tort action survived the death of the defendant, an action for compensatory damages for personal injuries would survive the death of defendant in 1931 because of the survival statute then in effect. * * * * * * "The Court reasoned that the English common law rule which would have barred the action never became part of Florida common law because at English common law a tort action was punitive rather than remedial, while th

1969The District Court stated: "The Supreme Court of Florida in Waller v. First Savings & Trust Co., 103 Fla. 1025 , 138 So. 780 (1931), held that while at English common law no tort action survived the death of the defendant, an action for compensatory damages for personal injuries would survive the death of defendant in 1931 because of the survival statute then in effect. * * * * * * "The Court reasoned that the English common law rule which would have barred the action never became part of Florida common law because at English common law a tort action was punitive rather than remedial, while th

1969Admittedly, if we follow this reasoning we must hold that under the 1965 survival statute * * * punitive damages do not survive the death of the injured party." Id., 213 So.2d at 280 .