""State Farm Mut"" — Epstein Files Search

esc

Search documentsgo
Browse entitiesgo
Corpus statsgo
About the datago
AI settingsgo

Search Entities About Stats Settings

Dataset

Sort

Status

DOJ Status

Date Range

–

Email Headers

Page Count

–

30 results for “"State Farm Mut"”

Keyboard Shortcuts

/

Focus search

Esc

Blur input

O

Open PDF

←→

Paginate

EFTA00679838Dataset 9

2007-10-033p1,465w

…to sign a general release which would release his second claim as well. The release was *816 The Kees argue that the trial court incorrectly thus unclear as to whether or not the second claim would enforced the Proposal for Settlement because the proposal also be released in the settlement of the first claim. There was ambiguous under the Florida Supreme Court's is no similar ambiguity in this case. Baptist Hospital decision in State Farm Mut. Auto., Ins. Co…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00679838.pdf

EFTA00617880Dataset 9

2013-07-0811p3,499w

…rights in the matter. See, e.g., Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 2 EFTA00617881 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 3 of 11 377, 394 (1968) ("[W]e find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered to assert another"); Tomai-Minogue v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 770 F.2d 1228, 1232 (4th Cir. 1985) (finding it a "questionable line of argument . . . [that]…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00617880.pdf

EFTA01196659Dataset 9

2015-02-0326p5,229w

…be safficiently clear and definite to allow the offeree to make an informed without needing clarification." Id. "Therefore, parties should not 'nit-pick' the validity of a proposal for settlement based on allegations of ambiguity unless the asserted ambiguity could 'reasonably affect the offeree's decision' on whether to accept the proposal for settlement.'?. at 629. : .:.2 Releases are generally treated as conditions or nonmonetary terms that must be described with particularity. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01196659.pdf

EFTA01200889Dataset 9

2014-12-0617p4,718w

…and in Epstein's Reply, the Proposal was valid on its face and complied with both with the reouirements of &768.79 of the Florida Statutes and the particularity requisites as delineated in Rule 1.442(B) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The confidentiality clause was clear and unambiguous and satisfied both Rule 1.442 and the case law applicable to it, rendering Epstein's Proposal valid. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01200889.pdf

EFTA01193709Dataset 9

2008-07-1611p6,425w

…So.2d 941 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1998) Scullin v. City of Pensacola, 667 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) Sparklin v. Southern Indus. Associates, Inc., 960 So.2d 895, 10 897 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) Stasio v. McManaway, 936 So.2d 676, 678 (Fla. 5th DCA 16 2006) State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 15 (Fla. 2006) Swartsel v. Publix, 882 So.2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) 3, 4, 5, 6, 10…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01193709.pdf

EFTA00593403Dataset 9

…v. Gibson, 884 So. 2d 1046. 1050-51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Here, as a matter of undisputed fact, there is no privity between the Estate and Balassa or his firm. And while there is a limited exception to this standing rule for parties who "stand in the shoes" of a former client, see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2.1630, 632-33 (Fla. 1991), the Estate cannot demonstrate that it has any…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00593403.pdf

EFTA01128631Dataset 9

…v. Gibson, 884 So. 2d 1046. 1050-51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Here, as a matter of undisputed fact, there is no privity between the Estate and Balassa or his firm. And while there is a limited exception to this standing rule for parties who "stand in the shoes" of a former client, see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So. 2.1630, 632-33 (Fla. 1991), the Estate cannot demonstrate that it has any…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01128631.pdf

EFTA01297082Dataset 10

2017-07-1143p15,935w

…689 F. Supp. 465 (E.D. Pa. 1988), aff'd in relevant part, 868 F.2d 1342 (3d Cir. 1989). The decision to grant a new trial lies within the discretion of the district court, although "such requests are disfavored." State Farm Mut Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lincow, 715 F. Supp. 2d 617, 626 (ED. Pa. 2010) ["14] (internal citations omitted). Prosser argues she is entitled to a new trial for essentially the same reasons advanced in her motion for…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01297082.pdf

EFTA00614418Dataset 9

2009-04-1037p6,240w

…the same time hav- ing to defend against the action properly before the court is sufficiently prejudicial to warrant certiorari. Further, effective review is necessary to mine compliance with the discovery rule as written. CERTIORARI is granted and the order to produce documents unrelated to the present controversy but which might possibly lead to evidence supporting some subsequent cause of action is quashed. COBB and PETERSON, IL, concur. Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2001. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00614418.pdf

EFTA00617978Dataset 9

2015-02-0326p5,268w

…settlement proposal be safficiently clear and definite to allow the offeree to make an informed without needing clarification." Id. "Therefore, parties should not 'nit-pick' the validity of a proposal for settlement based on allegations of ambiguity unless the asserted ambiguity could 'reasonably affect the offeree's decision' on whether to accept the proposal for settlement.'?. at 629. Releases are generally treated as conditions or nonmonetary terms that must be described with particularity. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00617978.pdf

EFTA00308358Dataset 9

2014-06-025p1,122w

…proposal be sufficiently clear and definite to allow the offeree to make an informed decision without needing clarification." Id. "Therefore, parties should not 'nit-pick' the validity of a proposal for settlement based on allegations of ambiguity unless the asserted ambiguity could 'reasonably affect the offeree's decision' on whether to accept the proposal for settlement." Id. at 629. Releases are generally treated as conditions or nonmonetary terms that must be described with particularity. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00308358.pdf

EFTA00592682Dataset 9

2015-02-0212p3,145w

…constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings"); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.") (cited and quoted in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Altamonte Springs Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. 2013 WL 1212818, at *2 (M. Fla. March 25…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00592682.pdf

EFTA01098163Dataset 9

2013-07-0811p3,502w

…rights in the matter. See, e.g., Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 2 EFTA01098164 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 3 of 11 377, 394 (1968) ("[W]e find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered to assert another"); Tomai-Minogue v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 770 F.2d 1228, 1232 (4th Cir. 1985) (finding it a "questionable line of argument . . . [that]…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01098163.pdf

EFTA01132524Dataset 9

2015-02-0212p3,148w

…customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings"); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.") (cited and quoted in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Altamonte Springs Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. 2013 WL 1212818, at *2 (M.D…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01132524.pdf

EFTA00722688Dataset 9

2009-04-1037p6,331w

…the same time hav- ing to defend against the action properly before the court is sufficiently prejudicial to warrant certiorari. Further, effective review is necessary to assure compliance with the discovery rule as written. CERTIORARI is granted and the order to produce documents unrelated to the present controversy but which might possibly lead to evidence supporting some subsequent cause of action is quashed. COBB and PETERSON, IL, concur. Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2001. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00722688.pdf

EFTA01657752Dataset 10

2015-07-0651p13,321w

…work product material"). The Court finds that Petitioners have not made the strong showing of necessity and unavailability required to disclose the mental impressions of counsel that might be at issue in this case. (aes DE 265 at 16). Discovery of opinion work product is most often granted in bad-faith settlement cases, where "mental impressions [of the underlying counsel] are the pivotal issue in the current litigation." Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01657752.pdf

EFTA02335898Dataset 11

2015-07-0651p13,383w

…fact work product material"). The Court finds that Petitioners have not made the strong showing of necessity and unavailability required to disclose the mental impressions of counsel that might be at issue in this case. DE 265 at 16). Discovery of opinion work product is most often granted in bad-faith settlement cases, where "mental impressions [of the underlying counsel] are the pivotal issue in the current litigation." Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02335898.pdf

EFTA00210140Dataset 9

2015-07-0651p13,318w

…work product material"). The Court finds that Petitioners have not made the strong showing of necessity and unavailability required to disclose the mental impressions of counsel that might be at issue in this case. (aes DE 265 at 16). Discovery of opinion work product is most often granted in bad-faith settlement cases, where "mental impressions [of the underlying counsel] are the pivotal issue in the current litigation." Holmgren I. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00210140.pdf

EFTA00805501Dataset 9

2017-10-059p2,899w

…it sought answers or better responses. 6 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA00805506 Civil Procedure. The plain language of Rule 1.510 expressly "excludes from consideration on a motion for summary judgment, any document that is not one of the enumerated documents or is not a certified attachment to a proper affidavit." Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707, 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (specifically denying consideration of…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00805501.pdf

EFTA00606624Dataset 9

2010-03-2332p8,686w

…that any documents are protected by the attorney/client privilege. If petitioner thought some documents might be protected by either privilege, it should have listed the specific documents to which it claimed the privilege attaches. Otherwise, neither the trial court nor this court has anything specific to address."). "The proper procedure is for the trial court to examine the disputed documents in-camera and remove those documents which fall into the privileged category." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v…

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00606624.pdf

1–20 of 30 results · page 1 of 2

«←1

Results by Dataset30 total

Set 9

27

Set 10

2

Set 11

1

Corpus: 1990-03-17 – 2025-12-01

October 2007

Mo

Tu

We

Th

Fr

Sa

Su

None

Light

Medium

Heavy