§ 768.77, Fla. Stat. — Leading Cases | Syfert Law

Leading cases: § 768.77, Fla. Stat.

Cited in 31 cases (0 in the last 5 years, 1989–2020). ← Read the statute text
Standard Jury Inst-Civ. Cases (01-1 & 01-2) (2002) fla · cites it 18× “In 1999, section 768.77, Florida Statutes, was amended to require itemization of only economic losses, noneconomic losses, and punitive damages.”
WR Grace & Company-Conn. v. Pyke (1995) fladistctapp · cites it 4× “Section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1993); Townsend v.”
Beauvais v. Edell (2000) fladistctapp · cites it 4× “[8] To enable the trial *268 judge to make this review of damages, at the same time the legislature also created in section 768.77 a companion provision for mandatory itemized verdicts.”
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse (1996) fladistctapp · cites it 3× “[4] The ability to scrutinize a verdict for either inadequacy or excessiveness based on the use of an itemized verdict was part of the stated legislative intent in enacting section 768.77, which mandates itemization of damage amounts broken down into categories.”
Miller v. Hernandez (1994) sd · cites it 2× “040 (West 1993); Fla.Stat. Ann. § 768.77 (West 1992); ILCS ch.”
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Darragh (2012) fladistctapp · cites it 5× “The trial court declined to give the instruction after hearing *899 argument from Darragh’s counsel, who believed that the case law requiring a trial court to instruct the jury to reduce future economic damages to present value had been superced-ed by an amendment to section…”
Silva v. Southwest Florida Blood Bank, Inc. (1992) fla · cites it 2× “See § 768.77, Fla. Stat. (1989). Perhaps more important, not only does the provision upon which Southwest relies not exist today, it did not exist when the medical malpractice statute of limitations was enacted.”
Standard Jury Instructions—Civil Cases (No. 98-1) (1998) fla · cites it 14× “[[Image here]] FOREMAN OR FOREWOMAN NOTE ON USE For a model itemized verdict form, as contemplated by section 768.77, Florida Statutes, refer to Model Verdict Form 8.”
Burton v. Powell (1989) fladistctapp · cites it 4× “The attorneys below both agreed to the submission of these interrogatories concerning the period of time to be covered in regard to compensation for future losses because of the provisions of the Tort Reform Act of 1986, section 768.77. See In Re Standard Jury Instructions, 541…”
In Re Standard Jury Instructions (1989) fla · cites it 9× “985, Standard Jury Instructions, the two model forms of itemized damage verdicts with a note on use and comments, entitled: MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES (TORT REFORM ACT OF 1986, § 768.77 F.S. 1987) and MODEL FORM OF VERDICT ITEMIZING WRONGFUL DEATH…”
Johnson v. Clark (2007) flmd · cites it 2× “Fla. Stat. § 768.77 (1). Such itemization is mandatory if requested by a party.”
Food Lion v. Jackson (1998) fladistctapp · cites it 3× “80 In using the above verdict form, the parties and trial court ignored the itemization requirements of section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1995); only one line was provided for a composite of all damages rather than setting forth separate amounts for past economic and…”
Dyes v. Spick (1992) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “Two important aspects of tort reform are the itemized verdict statute, section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1989), and the remittitur and additur statute, section 768.”
Brown v. Sims (1989) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “Section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1987), which now requires an itemized verdict for categories of damages, does not also require an itemization of all negligence elements.”
Cowen v. Thornton (1993) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “Since the enactment of section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1991), most tort cases are now submitted to the jury with an interrogatory verdict form that usually causes a zero verdict to be both inconsistent and inadequate.”
In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT NO. 13-01 (PRODUCTS LIABILITY) (2015) fla · cites it 2× “For a model itemized verdict form, as contemplated by section 768.77, Florida Statutes, refer to Model Verdict Forms 2(a) and 2(b).”
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-10 (2012) fla · cites it 2× “If you find plaintiff, John Smith,-negligenMn any degree, the court, in entering judgment, will-reduce Smith’s total amount of damages-(-100%) by-the percentage of negligence-which you find-is chargeable-to Smith, SQ-SA-Y-WE ABLrthis dajMif 19 FOREMAN OR FOREWOMAN NQ-T-E-ON US-E…”
Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Van Dyke (1991) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “[1] In this case the court submitted to the jury an itemized verdict pursuant to Section 768.77, Florida Statutes (1989). The statute, enacted as a part of the broad legislative tort reform effort of 1986, requires a jury to specifically calculate each line item of damages…”
Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Young (2003) fladistctapp · cites it 8× “§ 768.77, Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis added).”
Morton Roofing, Inc. v. Prather (2003) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “[2] It is unclear whether the verdict was deemed inconsistent with the evidence or inconsistent because of no award for past pain and suffering, yet $250,000 for future pain and suffering.”