Gregg v. U.S. Industries, Inc. (Two Cases), s. 76-2107
| Decision Date | 15 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 76-2107,81-5956,s. 76-2107 |
| Citation | 721 F.2d 345 |
| Parties | F. Browne GREGG, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. U.S. INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. F. Browne GREGG, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. U.S. INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Bedell, Bedell, Dittmar & Zehmer, C. Harris Dittmar, Jacksonville, Fla., for U.S. Industries.
Olwin, Connelly, Chase, O'Donnell & Weyher, William F. Sondericker, Mary C. Mone, Gary D. Hoppe, New York City, Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb, Raymond Ehrlich, John M. McNatt, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., for Gregg.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Judge.
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND GREGG'S PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
(Opinion September 30, 1983, 11th Cir., 1983, 715 F.2d 1522).
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, HENDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
With respect to Gregg's petition for rehearing and for clarification, we affirmed the judgment as it related to Gregg's Count I to the extent that USI was found to have committed fraud. We reversed the award of compensatory damages to Gregg under Count I because of erroneous instructions to the jury. As to the judgment for $500,000 punitive damages for Gregg under Count I, we remanded to the district court for it to determine whether this award stands.
Gregg's petition for clarification is GRANTED to the extent that we specifically confirm what occurs by operation of law, that is, the issue of the amount of compensatory damages, if any, to which Gregg is entitled under Count I is to be established by a properly instructed jury which is not to retry the issue of USI's liability under Count I.
We again decline to address whether, with the compensatory damage award to Gregg under Count I reversed, the judgment for punitive damages for Gregg under Count I remains in effect. This issue was not briefed or argued, and we leave it to the district court.
As to Gregg's Count III, the petition for rehearing is GRANTED to the extent that in the summary of the disposition of the claims, at 715 F.2d at 1543, the provision concerning Gregg's claim under Count III is amended to read:
Count III: Breach of contract. Judgment for USI REVERSED.
In all other respects Gregg's petition for rehearing and clarification is DENIED.
USI's petition for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Gabay
... ... including: (1) the joinder of his two indictments for counterfeiting and bond jumping ... this finer level of scrutiny in criminal cases is the fear that the declarant may be acting out ... In the case before us, Gabay was convicted of criminal contempt ... ...
-
Gregg v. U.S. Industries, Inc., s. 88-3056
...of this case are fully set forth in this court's prior opinion reported in Gregg v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 1522, modified, 721 F.2d 345 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 960, 104 S.Ct. 2173, 80 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). We thus set forth the facts only when necessary in the discussion ......
-
Technical Resource Services, Inc. v. Dornier Medical Systems, Inc.
...Robinson v. Parrish, 720 F.2d 1548, 1550 (11th Cir.1983); Gregg v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 1522, 1530, clarified on reh'g, 721 F.2d 345 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 960, 104 S.Ct. 2173, 80 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984).10 TRS argues that the jury finding of insufficient economic power m......
-
Gregg v. Commissioner
...trial that was appealed, reversed in part, and remanded (Gregg v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 1522 (11th Cir. 1983), modified 721 F.2d 345 (11th Cir. 1983)), and a third jury trial that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Gregg v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 887 F.2d 1462 ......