Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Nerbonne, Nv v. Lake Bryan Intern.green2 sentences2024The adverse interest exception to the imputation rule has been held inapplicable “where the transaction on behalf of the principal is entrusted solely to the officer or agent having the knowledge.” Nerbonne, N.V. v. Lake Bryan Int’l Props., 685 So. 2d 1029, 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). 2007Hutton & Co., 426 So.2d 1055 , 1057 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see also Turner v. Anderson, 704 So.2d 748 , 751 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (relying on Kulla ). [5] Similarly, the adverse interest exception to the imputation rule has been held inapplicable "where the transaction on behalf of the principal is entrusted solely to the officer or agent having the knowledge." Nerbonne, N.V., 685 So.2d at 1031 . | 2 | 2 |
Graham v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Chamberlain, 159 So. 3d at 192. | 1 | 1 |
O'Halloran v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLPgreen1 sentence2024See also O'Halloran v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 969 So. 2d 1039, 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Joel Strickland Enterprises v. Atlantic Discount Co.green1 sentence2007Co., 137 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962) (stating that knowledge is not imputed to the corporation "where the conduct of the agent is such as to raise a clear presumption that he would not communicate to the principal the facts in controversy, as where an agent is in reality acting in his own business or for his own personal interest and adversely to the principal"). | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Andersongreen1 sentence2007Hutton & Co., 426 So.2d 1055 , 1057 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see also Turner v. Anderson, 704 So.2d 748 , 751 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (relying on Kulla ). [5] Similarly, the adverse interest exception to the imputation rule has been held inapplicable "where the transaction on behalf of the principal is entrusted solely to the officer or agent having the knowledge." Nerbonne, N.V., 685 So.2d at 1031 . | 1 | 1 |
STATE DEPT. OF INS. v. Blackburngreen1 sentence2007But if a corporate agent was "acting adversely to the corporation's interests, the knowledge and misconduct of the agent are not imputed to the corporation." State, Dep't of Ins. v. Blackburn, 633 So.2d 521, 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see also Seidman & Seidman v. Gee, 625 So.2d 1, 2-3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (referring to "an exception to the imputation rule [that] exists where an individual is acting adversely to the corporation"); Joel Strickland Enters., Inc. v. Atlantic Disc. | 1 | 1 |
Seidman & Seidman v. Geegreen1 sentence2007But if a corporate agent was "acting adversely to the corporation's interests, the knowledge and misconduct of the agent are not imputed to the corporation." State, Dep't of Ins. v. Blackburn, 633 So.2d 521, 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see also Seidman & Seidman v. Gee, 625 So.2d 1, 2-3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (referring to "an exception to the imputation rule [that] exists where an individual is acting adversely to the corporation"); Joel Strickland Enters., Inc. v. Atlantic Disc. | 1 | 1 |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, As Receiver v. O'melveny & Meyersgreen1 sentence1994FDIC v. O'Melveny & Myers, 969 F.2d 744, 751 (9th Cir.1992). *525 Based upon the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice without affording the Department the opportunity to amend. | 1 | 1 |
Aloha Utilities, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commissiongreen1 sentence1985By that reasoning, the *248 imputation of CIAC and its corresponding affect on rates is to be used by the Commission as a sanction for non-compliance with record keeping, contrary to Aloha Utilities v. Florida Public Service Commission, 376 So.2d 850, 851 (Fla. 1979), wherein the Supreme Court held that the Commission could not deny a justified rate increase as a sanction for non-compliance with record-keeping requirements, holding: In this case, the Commission has endeavored to sanction or punish Aloha for non-compliance with the Commission's regulations by denying an otherwise proven rate aw | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kulla v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2007Hutton & Co., 426 So.2d 1055 , 1057 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see also Turner v. Anderson, 704 So.2d 748 , 751 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (relying on Kulla ). [5] Similarly, the adverse interest exception to the imputation rule has been held inapplicable "where the transaction on behalf of the principal is entrusted solely to the officer or agent having the knowledge." Nerbonne, N.V., 685 So.2d at 1031 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.