California Code Of Civil Procedure § 338(1)

17 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Smith v. Cremins
  308 F.2d 187· 9th Cir.· 1962-09-20 ·cited 118×
  The court held that the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and that the "liability created by statute" limitation period applied.
• Suckow Borax Mines Consol., Inc. v. Borax Consolidated
  185 F.2d 196· 9th Cir.· 1950-10-26 ·cited 95×
  The court held that affirmative defenses of release and statute of limitations were properly raised and that the releases, supported by consideration and covering all claims, barred the antitrust action under California law, and the statute of limitations had also run.
• Donovan v. Reinbold
  433 F.2d 738· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-05 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for civil rights actions in California is three years, and that public attorneys are not immune from liability for advising disregard of administrative orders. The court also affirmed the damages award for emotional distress.
• Selma Steiner v. 20TH Century-Fox Film Corp.
  232 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-15 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the appellant, as a landlord, is a proper party to bring an antitrust action alleging direct injury to her reversionary interest, and that the statute of limitations runs from the last overt act causing damage, with the closing of the theatre being the only po
• Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union NO. 36
  719 F.2d 1036· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the California three-year statute of limitations for actions upon a liability created by statute applies to a union's breach of its duty of fair representation claim, and that the Del Costello decision should not be applied retroactively.
• Ashland OIL Co. OF Cal. v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal. & Dep't of Energy
  567 F.2d 984· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1977-12-12 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the claim for actual overcharges is governed by California's three-year statute of limitations, while the claim for treble damages is governed by the one-year statute for penalties.
• Burnham Chem. Co. v. Borax Consolidated
  170 F.2d 569· 9th Cir.· 1948-10-27 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was an action at law for damages under federal antitrust laws, not a suit in equity, and was barred by the California statute of limitations because the plaintiff knew or had reason to believe its business was damaged by antitrust violat
• Jackson v. Hayakawa
  605 F.2d 1121· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that res judicata barred the claim regarding mass arrests, and the blacklist claim was barred by the statute of limitations. However, the court reversed summary judgment on the disciplinary proceedings claim, allowing plaintiffs to rely on a prior limited due proce
• Bratton v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. & Local 1845 United Steel Workers of Am.
  649 F.2d 658· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the three-year statute of limitations for actions based on statutory liability applies to section 1981 claims, and that Title VII claims are not subject to state statutes of limitations. The court reversed summary judgment for some plaintiffs on section 1981 c
• Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y OF SAN Diego & Pete Wilson
  569 F.2d 1066· 9th Cir.· 1978-02-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Title VII claim was time-barred based on the notice period, but the § 1983 claim was not time-barred and punitive damages are recoverable. The court also found the EEOC determination admissible evidence.
• MAY v. Enomoto
  633 F.2d 164· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled and that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, thus affirming the directed verdict.
• Marshall v. Kleppe
  637 F.2d 1217· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-19 ·cited 24×
  A corporation can bring a Fifth Amendment claim for damages, and claims alleging violations of constitutional rights are not automatically barred by the FTCA statute of limitations.
• Hall v. Copco Pac., Ltd.
  224 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1955-08-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an action under the Oregon Workmen's Compensation Act, where the employer failed to secure compensation, is a liability created by statute subject to California's three-year statute of limitations, while an action under the Oregon Employers' Liability Act is c
• Jones v. S.D. Bechtel, Jr.
  788 F.2d 571· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 6×
  It was error to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's Title VII claim without affording an opportunity to amend when a right-to-sue letter was issued before dismissal, and § 1981 claims should not have been dismissed based on alleging sex discrimination alongside race.
• LEH v. Gen. Petroleum Corp.
  330 F.2d 288· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the one-year California statute of limitations for penalties applies to federal antitrust treble damage actions accruing before the federal four-year statute, as construed by California courts.
• Tosti v. City OF LOS Angeles
  754 F.2d 1485· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services applies retroactively to discriminatory acts predating the decision, and that the statute of limitations was tolled by the pendency of a related class action.
• Travelers Express Co., Inc. v. Cory
  664 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-21 ·cited 2×
  Neither the statute of limitations nor equitable estoppel bars the Controller's suit to recover unclaimed property under the Unclaimed Property Law.