Discovery Rule For Statute Of Limitations

111 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Nardone v. Reynolds
  333 So. 2d 25· Fla.· 1976-05-19 ·cited 273×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed when the statute of limitations begins to run in medical malpractice cases involving an incompetent minor. The court held that the statute commences when the injury becomes apparent and known to the parents, even if the cause of the injury rema
• Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Ford
  92 So. 2d 160· Fla.· 1955-10-19 ·cited 109×
  An employee of Seaboard Air Line Railroad developed occupational contact dermatitis from chromate compounds in a rust inhibitor supplied by his employer. The court held that the three-year statute of limitations under the Federal Employers' Liability Act did not begin running unt
• Ilo Vanderboom v. Sexton
  422 F.2d 1233· 8th Cir.· 1970-02-24 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for the federal securities claim is governed by federal law regarding discovery of fraud, and that the common law fraud claim should be heard under pendent jurisdiction if the federal claim proceeds.
• Eoghan N. Kelley v. Sch. Bd. OF Seminole Cnty.
  435 So. 2d 804· Fla.· 1983-07-14 ·cited 88×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a school board's suit against an architect for design defects in school roofs was barred by the four-year statute of limitations, rejecting the lower court's adoption of a 'continuous treatment' doctrine that would delay the statute's commencem
• Fausto Lopez-Infante v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co.
  809 So. 2d 13· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-01-16 ·cited 59×
  Appellants purchased what they believed to be a retirement plan (Selectex) from Union Central Life Insurance Company in 1990, but received ordinary whole life insurance policies instead. They discovered the fraud in 1998 and sued in 2000. The trial court dismissed on statute of l
• Berry Petroleum Co. v. Adams & Peck
  518 F.2d 402· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-23 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a Rule 10b-5 action in Texas should be the three-year period from the Texas Securities Act, but affirmed dismissal because the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the fraud more than three years prior to filing suit. The cour
• Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Tillman
  453 So. 2d 1376· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-07-13 ·cited 44×
  This consolidated medical malpractice appeal involves a patient who received a knee prosthesis with mismatched components. The court addresses whether the statute of limitations barred claims against the surgeon, whether the hospital adequately demonstrated standard of care, the
• Walker v. Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n
  268 F.2d 16· 9th Cir.· 1959-05-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, and that the denial of the motion to alter the dismissal order was not an abuse of discretion because the proposed amended complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Stanford Birnholz v. Blake
  399 So. 2d 375· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-05-19 ·cited 41×
  Birnholz, an attorney and CPA, sued his former attorneys for professional negligence in handling a fee collection matter. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, but the appellate court reversed, finding a triable issue of fact regarding when
• Garter-Bare Co. v. Munsingwear, Inc.
  650 F.2d 975· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-17 ·cited 40×
  Findings of fact in summary judgment proceedings are not truly findings of fact and should not be given deference on appeal.
• Jordan v. United States
  503 F.2d 620· 6th Cir.· 1974-09-24 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the plaintiff's malpractice claim did not accrue in 1969, as the plaintiff did not discover, nor should he have reasonably discovered, that his injury was the result of malpractice until June 7, 1971.
• Halladay v. Verschoor
  381 F.2d 100· 8th Cir.· 1967-08-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the successor trustee had standing to sue a third party for wrongs against the trust estate and that the trial court erred in denying the amendment to add the Attorney General's special representative as a party plaintiff.
• Kramas v. Sec. GAS & OIL Inc.
  672 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1982-03-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions on materiality for federal securities claims require reversal, but affirmed the dismissal of other claims and the judgment for breach of fiduciary duty.
• Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Sitomer
  524 So. 2d 671· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-02-10 ·cited 33×
  In a medical malpractice action arising from complications following a bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy performed by Dr. Smith, the court affirmed liability for negligent medical treatment, upheld the jury's finding on the statute of limitations, and modified the award of attorn
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. The Seaboard Corp.
  677 F.2d 1289· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 29×
  The court held that material issues of fact exist regarding the statute of limitations and Jones' scienter for the § 12(2), § 10(b), and common law fraud claims, requiring reversal of summary judgment.
• Cleremont L. Covalt and Ahnighita M. Covalt v. Carey Canada Inc.
  860 F.2d 1434· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-07 ·cited 28×
  The Seventh Circuit certified a question to the Indiana Supreme Court regarding whether Indiana's statute of repose allows a plaintiff to sue within two years of discovering a disease, even if discovered more than ten years after product delivery. The court held that CERCLA does
• Toledo Park Homes & H.D.V. Constr. Corp. v. Grant
  447 So. 2d 343· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-02-29 ·cited 28×
  Toledo Park Homes and H.D.V. Construction sued surveyor John Grant for breach of contract and professional malpractice after a survey failed to disclose an easement encroachment. The trial court granted Grant's motion to dismiss based on a two-year statute of limitations for prof
• Brown v. Am. Broad. Co.
  704 F.2d 1296· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Virginia does not recognize a common law right of privacy, and that claims for business interference are subject to personal injury statutes of limitation, not property injury statutes. The accrual of an electronic surveillance claim is a jury question.
• Ondo v. F. Gary Gieseke, P.A.
  697 So. 2d 921· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-07-23 ·cited 27×
  Gloria Ondo, as personal representative of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a summary judgment dismissing her medical malpractice wrongful death action based on the statute of limitations. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the statute of limitations for
• Richards Enters., Inc. v. Swofford
  495 So. 2d 1210· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-10-02 ·cited 24×
  Richards Enterprises appealed the dismissal of its legal malpractice claim against attorney Swofford, arguing that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until after the appellate court affirmed the adverse foreclosure decision. The court held that the two-year statute o
• Cowan v. Keystone Emp. Profit Sharing Fund
  586 F.2d 888· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction under ERISA's civil enforcement section (29 U.S.C. § 1132) is precluded for causes of action that arose or acts/omissions that occurred before January 1, 1975, due to the interaction with 29 U.S.C. § 1144.
• Hull v. Eaton Corp.
  825 F.2d 448· D.C. Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a discovery sanction precluding expert testimony, and properly granted summary judgment as plaintiffs could not establish essential elements of their claims without it.
• Olin Jones v. Ford Motor Co.
  599 F.2d 394· 10th Cir.· 1979-06-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring an antitrust claim as the alleged injury was to the corporation, not directly to him, and that the plaintiff's common law fraud and Rule 10b-5 claims were barred by the statute of limitations because he had discovered the
• LEE v. Mihalich
  847 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 21×
  The investigators are entitled to qualified immunity because the governing law regarding the statute of limitations was unclear at the time of their actions, and they relied on the advice of counsel.
• Marathon OIL Co. & Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Lunsford
  733 F.2d 1139· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 20×
  A claim for disability due to a herniated disc, arising from a prior work accident but unknown to the employee until later, is not barred by the one-year statute of limitations if filed within one year of the employee becoming aware of the injury's relationship to employment and
• Elbert Brown and Edith Brown v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc.
  441 So. 2d 1098· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-11-01 ·cited 20×
  The trial court granted summary judgment for asbestos manufacturers based on the statute of limitations, finding that the Browns' action filed in 1979 was barred by the four-year limitations period. The appellate court reversed, holding that a genuine factual issue existed about
• Hulver v. United States
  562 F.2d 1132· 8th Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations because the plaintiff discovered, or should have discovered, the acts constituting malpractice more than two years prior to filing the claim.
• Garter-Bare Co. v. Munsingwear Inc.
  723 F.2d 707· 9th Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 19×
  The district court correctly ruled that the fraud claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the trade secret and tortious interference claims lacked substantial evidence.
• Tanner v. Ellie M. Hartog, M.D.
  593 So. 2d 249· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-01-03 ·cited 18×
  Parents of a stillborn child filed a medical malpractice action against the physicians and hospital involved in the delivery. The trial court dismissed the complaint as barred by Florida's two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice. The appellate court affirmed, hold
• Mosesian v. Peat
  727 F.2d 873· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a jury's finding that a securities fraud action was timely filed should be reinstated, as the evidence did not permit a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as a matter of law. However, the court affirmed a directed verdict against the bankruptcy trustees due
• Schum v. Charles P. Bailey, M.D.
  578 F.2d 493· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court should have applied the New Jersey statute of limitations, not the New York statute, because New Jersey had a substantial interest in the case as the plaintiff's domicile and the location of the defendant's medical practice.
• Roberts v. Casey
  413 So. 2d 1226· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-04-21 ·cited 16×
  Parents of a child who suffered brain damage from meningitis sought damages against her pediatrician and hospital. The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing their claim as barred by the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice, holding that the limitations per
• Hoff Research & Dev. Labs., Inc. v. Philippine Nat'l Bank & Philippine Nat'l Bank
  426 F.2d 1023· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the fraud action was barred by the statute of limitations, as it was commenced more than two years after discovery and more than six years after accrual, even considering transitional provisions for the CPLR.
• Elliot v. Mark V. Barrow, M.D.
  526 So. 2d 989· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-06-03 ·cited 14×
  A widow appealed the dismissal of her medical malpractice wrongful death action against a hospital after her husband died from injuries sustained in a fall. The court reversed, holding that whether the statute of limitations was triggered is a fact question for the jury, not appr
• Dennie G. Beam and Martharay Beam v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc.
  486 So. 2d 672· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-04-10 ·cited 14×
  A hospital is not liable for negligent selection of a physician based on financial inability to pay a malpractice judgment, nor is there an implied contract for a financially sound physician.
• Pierce v. Aall Ins. Inc.
  513 So. 2d 160· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-08-13 ·cited 12×
  An insurance agent who provides advice about insurance coverage is a professional within the meaning of Florida's professional malpractice statute of limitations, and thus claims arising from improper advice about coverage options are subject to the two-year limitations period.
• Agristor Leasing v. Janies Saylor and Kaaren Saylor
  803 F.2d 1401· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-21 ·cited 12×
  A contractual disclaimer of reliance can be competent evidence on the issue of whether a plaintiff relied on alleged misrepresentations in a fraudulent misrepresentation claim.
• The Est. OF James James v. Martin Mem'l Hosp.
  422 So. 2d 1043· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-12-01 ·cited 12×
  A complaint for medical malpractice is not subject to dismissal for failure to state the date of discovery of the incident, as the defendant bears the burden of proving the statute of limitations.
• Cowan v. Turchin
  270 So. 2d 449· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-12-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding when the plaintiffs discovered or should have discovered the defect in the plastic piping, precluding summary judgment on the implied warranty claim.
• Dorcely v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Bus. & Prof'l Reg. & Thrity Malhotra
  22 So. 3d 834· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-11-25 ·cited 11×
  Louis Dorcely appealed the denial of his claim for reimbursement from Florida's Real Estate Recovery Fund after a real estate licensee fraudulently sold property he had transferred to her as trustee. The court affirmed the denial, finding the claim was untimely filed and did not
• Christopher v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  950 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the appellants' Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims were time-barred because the statute of limitations began to run when the discriminatory nature of the plan amendment was apparent, not when the concealment of a waiver provision was discovered
• Reisman v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  845 F.2d 289· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the complaint did not conclusively establish that the Reismans discovered or should have discovered the engine defect within the statute of limitations period.
• Wilhelm v. A.R. Traynor, Jr., D.O.
  434 So. 2d 1011· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-07-21 ·cited 11×
  The statute of limitations for medical malpractice begins to run when a plaintiff has notice of an injury that is the consequence of a defendant's negligent act, not when the full extent of damages becomes known. Here, the statute began running in March 1979 when Dr. Sawyer infor
• Walker v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co.
  529 F.2d 1163· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the existence of insurance coverage was previously adjudicated, damages for breach of contract are limited to policy value, and the fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
• Tullo v. Horner
  296 So. 2d 502· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-06-25 ·cited 11×
  The Tullos sued for fraud against Horner regarding alleged misrepresentation of the amount owed on a second mortgage. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, but the appellate court reversed, finding that a jury could reasonably find fraud based on the evidenc
• Bearse v. Main St. Invs.
  220 F. Supp. 2d 1338· M.D. Fla.· 2002-07-03 ·cited 10×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, recommending denial of motions to dismiss fraud claims and ordering the plaintiff to clarify the status of a trust for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
• DOE v. Hillsborough Cnty. Hosp. Auth.
  816 So. 2d 262· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-05-22 ·cited 10×
  John Doe appealed summary judgment dismissing his medical malpractice action against Tampa General Hospital and the Florida Board of Regents. The trial court held that Doe had constructive notice of his HIV-positive test results when they were placed in his medical records in 199
• J.D. Hamilton v. 1ST Source Bank
  895 F.2d 159· 4th Cir.· 1990-02-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the pay discrimination claim was not time-barred due to the discovery rule, but damages were limited to two years prior to the original complaint, and prejudgment interest was not recoverable on the discriminatory discharge claim where liquidated damages were
• Roger Zitrin, M.D., P.A. v. Donald Kenneth Glaser, M.D.
  621 So. 2d 748· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-06-30 ·cited 9×
  Dr. Zitrin appealed the dismissal of his legal malpractice action against his former attorney Shepard, contending the two-year statute of limitations had not expired. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statute of limitations for professional malpractic
• Gridley v. Cunningham
  550 F.2d 551· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Section 12(1) claim was barred by the statute of limitations because the amendment adding Cunningham as a defendant did not relate back to the original contract action. However, the Section 12(2) claims were timely.