Helmet House Corp. v. Stoddard

How courts have described this case

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

• “Both parties agree that [Florida’s] Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act . . . does not apply because the parties were sued under a contract theory.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1996-04-03· cited 174×
• ARKY, FREED v. Bowmar Instrument Corp.
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1988-12-22· cited 48×
• Love v. Gibson
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1849-01-15· cited 18×
• Curtis v. Cichon
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1985-01-16· cited 15×
• Fletcher v. Anderson
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1993-04-23· cited 11×
• Schrank v. Pearlman
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-10-23· cited 9×
• MICHAEL H. BLOOM, PA v. Dorta-Duque
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-11-10· cited 9×
• Desrosiers v. Russell
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1995-09-15· cited 9×