CasesAcadia Partners, L. P. v. Tompkins,
759 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).» Blake v. Munce,
426 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).» Food Fair, Inc. v. Anderson,
382 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).» Foshee v. Health Management Associates,
675 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).» Mid-Florida Television Corp. v. Boyles,
467 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1985).» R.D.M.H., Inc. v. Dempsey,
618 So 2d 794 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).»
Prevented multi-million dollar judgment addition in complex business litigation.
Acadia Partners sued Defendant corporate directors seeking to pierce the corporate veil and recoup a thirty million dollar ($30,000,000.00) judgment against the individual directors based upon a variety of tort theories.
Acadia prevailed at the trial court level, but was awarded less than three million ($3,000,000.00) of the thirty million dollars ($30,000,000.00) it sought.
Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the Defendant corporate directors in the appeal brought by Acadia. In a very complex matter involving the legal doctrines of joint and several liability, setoff, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, the twenty seven million dollar ($27,000,000.00) judgment addition sought by the Acadia Partners was denied.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Reversed breach of contract judgment against individuals.
An employee sued his corporate employer and its individual members for breach of contract, quantum meruit and fraudulent misrepresentation. The employee prevailed at the trial court level and was awarded damages. Ms. Lippincott effectively represented the individual members of the defendant employer.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled there was insufficient evidence to find the individual members personally responsible on the oral employment agreement. And, in addition, the appellate court found sufficient evidence of fraud against one member, but insufficient evidence against the other member.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Reversed fraud judgment against employer for new trial.
An employee sued her employer for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court entered judgment against the employer for both compensatory and punitive damages. Ms. Lippincott effectively represented the employer on appeal.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against the employer, and remanded for a new trial, finding:
1) The conduct of the employer’s security supervisor did not reach the level of outrageousness required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress;
2) The employee’s testimony regarding her alleged loss of earnings between her discharge and time of trial was inadmissible due to the absence of any showing that there was a probability she would have retained this job; and
3) The admission of a taped meeting was inadmissible because it contained hearsay regarding polygraph results.
Reversed dismissal of patient’s false imprisonment action.
Plaintiff sued a psychiatric hospital, a psychiatrist and a nurse for intentionally and wrongfully preventing her from leaving the facility. The trial court dismissed this action on the pleadings. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the Plaintiff on appeal.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled the Plaintiff’s action must be reinstated because her claims of false imprisonment were not claims of medical malpractice, and the statutory pre-suit requirements for malpractice actions did not govern.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Supreme Court reversed dismissal of a libel action against Orlando television station.
Plaintiff sued a television station and an investigative reporter for libel due to negative statements made about him on television. The trial court dismissed this action. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the Plaintiff on appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled:
1) Libel per se is a valid cause of action and the plaintiff had adequately alleged this action;
2) The television station could not hide behind the attorney/client privilege regarding its policy rationale for programming decisions;
3) Plaintiff could not be compelled to submit to a psychiatric examination simply because he alleged emotional distress in this lawsuit as a result of the television’s action; and
4) the trial court was correct regarding the dismissal of the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. See Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp., 431 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
The television station and the reporter appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, and Ms. Lippincott again successfully represented the Plaintiff.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District, finding the complaint against the television station and the reporter properly stated a cause of action for libel for both compensatory and punitive damages. The subsequent trial resulted in a verdict against the reporter and the television station and in favor of the Plaintiff.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Reversed judgment for fraud and punitive damages.
Dempsey sued R.D.M.H., Inc. and its principal for breach of contract and fraud. The trial court entered judgment for breach of contract, fraud, and punitive damages in favor of the plaintiff. Ms. Lippincott effectively represented R.D.M.H., Inc. on appeal.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for fraud and punitive damages against R.D.M.H., Inc. holding a compensatory damage award for both breach of contract and fraud could not stand where the plaintiff fails to establish any difference in the damages sustained. In addition, the court held that without a successful fraud judgment, the award of punitive damages could not stand.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5