Wheeler v. Baars
Citations
- 33 Fla. 696
Syllabus
<p>Action for deceit—proof of scienter—principal and agent BOTH LIABLE FOR AGENT’S DECEIT—FAILURE TO SEARCH REOORDS NO DEFENSE TO PARTY DECEIVING—COURT MUST NOT INSTRUCT ON THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.</p> <p>1. A false representation of a material fact, made with knowledge of its falsity, to a person ignorant'thereof, with intention that it shall be acted upon, followed by reliance upon and by action thereon amounting to substantial change of position, is a fraud of which the law will take cognizance.</p> <p>2. The knowledge, by the maker of the representation, of its falsity, or, in technical phrase, the scienter, can be established by either one of the three following phases of proof: (1) That the representation was made with actual knowledge of its falsity; (3) without knowledge either of its truth or falsity; (3) under circumstances in which the person making it ought to have known, if he did not know, of its falsity. Under the first phase the proof must show actual knowledge of the falsity of the representation. Under the second phase it should show that the representation was made in such absolute, unqualified and positive terms as to imply that the party making it had knowledge of its truth, and that he made such absolute, unqualified and positive assertion on a subject of which he was ignorant., and that he had no knowledge whether his assertion in reference thereto was true or false. Under the third phase -the proof should show that the party occupied such a special ■situation or possessed such means of knowledge as made it his duty to know as to the truth or falsity of the representation made. If the proof establishes either one of these three phases, the scienter is sufficiently made out.</p> <p>3. The requisite intent to deceive in suoli cases is to be inferred from the facts in proof.</p> <p>4. The laches of a party, to whom a misrepresentation of a material . fact has been made, in failing to search public records or other accessible sources of information
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that juvenile court had jurisdiction over an eighteen year old who committed an offense when she was sixteen years old but only to either transfer or waive jurisdiction
- holding that, if the person is over age eighteen and if the criteria of Section 54.02(j) are not satisfied, the juvenile court’s only option is to dismiss the case1
- holding that juvenile court had jurisdiction over an eighteen year old who committed an offense when she was sixteen years old but only to either transfer or waive jurisdiction
- holding that juvenile court maintains jurisdiction over a person who is eighteen years of age or older and allegedly engaged in delinquent conduct when a child, but that “such jurisdiction is limited to transferring the case under section 54.02(j
- explaining that once a defendant turns 18, the juvenile court’s “jurisdiction is limited to transferring the case under section 54.02(j
- stating that the juvenile courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over all proceedings involving a defendant who was a child when the alleged offense occurred
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Taylor
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.