Halkey-Roberts Corp. v. MacKal

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that statute of limitations begins to run in a case involving a continuing tort from the date the tortious conduct ceases
• stating breach of fiduciary duty is an intentional tort governed by section 95.11(3)( o )
• finding complaint filed in 1991 was not barred by four-year statute of limitation when appellant alleged defendant had repeatedly used corporate funds to further his personal, political and religious interest until termination in 1989
• reversing summary judgment and holding that the “question of whether [defendant’s] actions constituted continuing torts precludes the granting of summary judgment as to counts I and II. To what extent, if any, the concept applies to this case is an issue for the trier of fact to decide.”
• “The question of whether [Defendants’] actions constituted continuing torts precludes the granting of summary judgment as to counts I and II. To what extent, if any, the concept applies to this case is an issue for the trier of fact to decide.”
• “We also note that the granting of summary judgment as to counts I and II in their entirety was error because several of the complained-of acts are alleged to have occurred within four years preceding the filing of the complaint.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).