LOG IN
    SELECT A PUBLICATION:
Florida Law Weekly
FLW Supplement
FLW Federal
User Name:
Password:
 
Forgotten your password?


CONTACT
    Toll-free: 800-351-0917
    E-mail us
    Submit Opinions

PLACE AN ORDER
    Print Editions
    Online Editions
    Bound Volumes
    2/24-Hour Online Access


OUR PUBLICATIONS
    Florida Law Weekly
    FLW Supplement
    FLW Federal
    Collected Cases
    Sample FLW Online


RESEARCH
    Cross Citations
    Week In Review
    Rule Revisions
    Review Granted
    Current Issue Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2014 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2013 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    Florida Statutes
    Helpful Links



  
Federal New Releases

New Releases
from Federal Courts

Viewing the full text of these opinions will require logging in with your user name and password.

Torts -- Negligence -- Breach of fiduciary duty -- Receiver of failed bank filed civil action to recover losses that bank suffered as result of defendants' alleged negligent conduct -- Business judgment rule -- Under Georgia law, bank directors and officers could be subject to claims for ordinary negligence and breach of fiduciary duty based on ordinary negligence -- A bank director or officer may violate statutory standard of care established by Georgia Banking Code, even where he acts in good faith, if he fails to exercise the diligence, care, and skill of ordinarily prudent men acting under similar circumstances in like positions with respect to the process by which he makes decisions -- In a case like this one, the bank officer or director defendants may be held individually liable if they are shown to have violated statutory standard of care established by Georgia Banking Code
VIEW OPINION

Garnishment -- Dissolution -- Appeals -- Jurisdiction -- Court of appeals has jurisdiction over consolidated appeal from district court orders allowing judgment debtor to deposit funds into court's registry, dissolving the writs of garnishment, issuing a satisfaction of judgment, and awarding attorney's fees and costs to garnishee bank -- Because district court's order resolved the issue that gave rise to post-judgment proceedings, it was a final order for purposes of notice of appeal -- Although Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure enlarges time period for filing notice of appeal from 30 to 60 days when government is a party, government's withdrawal as an intervenor did not shorten appeal period from 60 days to 30 days because government retained an interest in outcome of appeal due to its entitlement to at least part of recovery -- District court did not err in allowing judgment debtor to deposit disputed funds into court's registry while competing claims to funds were resolved, and did not abuse discretion by applying Rule 67 -- Argument that court's actions amounted to impermissible asset freeze and injunction lacks meritorious -- Law does not require a judgment debtor to decide validity of competing claims and, thereby, risk exposure to multiple liability -- Deposit of disputed funds into court's registry halted post-judgment accrual of statutory interest -- District court did not err in dissolving as moot the writs of garnishment against banks after judgment debtor deposited the disputed funds into court's registry, because writs no longer served purpose of helping judgment creditor secure the debt owed by judgment debtor -- District court did not err in issuing a satisfaction of judgment to judgment debtor pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) after he deposited disputed funds plus post-judgment interest in court's registry -- Florida law does not require the plaintiff to accept the tendered amount before a satisfaction of judgment may be issued -- District court did not err in awarding attorney's fees and costs to garnishee bank -- No jury trial was required where deposit of disputed funds into court's registry mooted the issues, if any, raised in garnishee's answer to writ of garnishment, such that jury trial would have served no purpose -- District court was not required to make a threshold determination that bank was an innocent stakeholder before awarding attorney's fees and costs -- No abuse discretion in determining that judgment creditor should pay fees and costs of garnishee bank where Florida's garnishment statute does not mandate which party should bear expenses when there is no prevailing party, judgment debtor was not actually responsible for garnishment proceedings, and judgment creditor initiated and vigorously litigated garnishment proceedings and then failed to meet its burden of proving that assets to be garnished were debtor's property -- No abuse of discretion regarding amount of fees and costs to be paid to garnishee bank from funds otherwise due judgment creditor
VIEW OPINION

Find out more about FLW Federal.