Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.

886 F. Supp. 842 (N.D. Fla. 1995)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.

1 Citing case

  1. Teel v. United Technologies Pratt & Whitney

    953 F. Supp. 1534 (S.D. Fla. 1997)   Cited 11 times
    Recognizing a split of authority within district, and finding that statute did not conflict with Rules 8 and 9 which have no specific timing requirement

    Without an appellate opinion on point and because of the lack of consensus within the district, the applicability of § 768.72 remains an essential issue for the court to determine today. Cf. Martin v. Honeywell, Inc., 1995 WL 868604 (M.D.Fla. July 18, 1995) (Bucklew, J.) (holding § 768.72 a substantive limitation on punitive damages which federal courts must apply); Marcus v. Carrasquillo, 782 F. Supp. 593, 600-01 (M.D.Fla. 1992) (Kovachevich, J.) (same); Lancer Arabians, Inc. v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 723 F. Supp. 1444, 1446 (M.D.Fla. 1989) (Melton, J.) (same); accord, T.W.M. v. American Medical Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842 (N.D.Fla. 1995) (Vinson, J.) (same). But see In re Edgewater Sun Spot, Inc., 154 B.R. 338 (Bankr.N.D.Fla. 1993) (reaching opposite conclusion).