Discovery Rule For Statute Of Limitations

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

• Bailes v. Colonial Press, Inc.
  444 F.2d 1241· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-15 ·cited 9×
  A 10b-5 claim on behalf of a corporation matures when a fraudulent scheme becomes effective by deceiving public shareholders or incurring obligations to relying creditors.
• Martin v. David M. Drylie, M.D.
  560 So. 2d 1285· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-04-25 ·cited 8×
  This medical malpractice case involves a dispute over whether Dr. David Drylie, a University of Florida faculty member and Shands Teaching Hospital staff physician, is entitled to sovereign immunity as a state employee. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment on sovereig
• Green v. United States
  765 F.2d 105· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a medical malpractice claim under the FTCA accrues when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered their injury and its probable cause, not when they discover the negligence.
• Stella v. ASH
  425 So. 2d 122· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-12-28 ·cited 8×
  Florida appellate court reversed summary judgment in wrongful death medical malpractice case, holding that an action brought within two years of death is not time-barred and that knowledge of the true condition does not conclusively establish discovery of the defendant's alleged
• Pioneer Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Angus G. Andrews
  652 F.2d 439· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a cause of action for professional malpractice accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, only when the plaintiff suffers legally cognizable damages, not merely when the negligence is discovered.
• Roundhouse v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
  604 F.2d 990· 6th Cir.· 1979-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that payments from a third party to a victim are generally subject to the collateral source rule, and a defendant cannot benefit from such payments. The court also affirmed that claims for lost goodwill are often too speculative to be recoverable.
• Hart v. Kenneth H. Hart and his wife
  234 So. 2d 393· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-04-21 ·cited 8×
  Frances Hart appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing her conversion claim for over $12,000 from a savings account on statute of limitations grounds. The appellate court reversed, holding that when fraudulent concealment or undue influence is alleged, the statute of limitat
• State v. Pierce
  201 So. 2d 886· Fla.· 1967-07-19 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the District Court of Appeal and reinstated Pierce's larceny conviction for misappropriating estate funds while acting as executor. The critical issue was whether the statute of limitations began running when Pierce took the money in 1961 or whe
• Diamond v. E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
  366 So. 2d 1221· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-01-30 ·cited 7×
  Plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment dismissing their product liability action against a drug manufacturer for failure to comply with Florida's statute of limitations. The court affirmed, holding that product liability actions must be brought within 12 years of the product's de
• Rajaa Hanano and George Horak v. Steven P. Petrou, M.D.
  683 So. 2d 637· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-12-02 ·cited 6×
  Hanano and Horak appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice complaint based on the statute of limitations. The court held that the trial court improperly dismissed the complaint on a motion to dismiss because the complaint's allegations did not affirmatively establish th
• Abbott v. Capone
  682 So. 2d 597· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-10-25 ·cited 6×
  A group of 234 plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of attorney Lesley Friedsam in a legal malpractice action. The court reversed, holding that Friedsam failed to conclusively establish that the statute of limitations had expired as a matter of law, as her affi
• Goellner v. Julius Butler, M.D.
  836 F.2d 426· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations because she had sufficient notice of her injuries and potential causes of action by November 1974, and Minnesota law does not apply the discovery rule to malpractice claims.
• Hersh v. Allen Prods. Co., Inc.
  789 F.2d 230· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a material issue of fact existed regarding when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the denial of her grievance and the union's refusal to arbitrate, precluding summary judgment based on the statute of limitations.
• Cohn v. G.D. Searle & Co.
  784 F.2d 460· 3d Cir.· 1986-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying its Commerce Clause holding retroactively, and that the New Jersey tolling statute's invalidation should apply nonretroactively based on the Chevron test.
• Fed. Ins. Co. v. Banco Popular de Puerto RICO
  750 F.2d 1095· 1st Cir.· 1983-04-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that both the banks and the employer (ICMC) were negligent, and liability for embezzled funds could be apportioned between them under Puerto Rico tort law.
• Hill v. Virgin
  359 So. 2d 918· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-06-20 ·cited 6×
  In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff appealed a summary judgment dismissing his lawsuit against his orthopedic surgeon on statute of limitations grounds. The court affirmed, holding that the two-year limitations period for professional malpractice claims began running
• Anne C. Sanders v. United States
  D.D.C.· 1977-02-16 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed a personal injury verdict, holding that while counsel's 'golden rule' arguments were improper, they did not constitute reversible error.
• Nivens v. Signal OIL & GAS Co., Inc.
  520 F.2d 1019· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's tort claim had prescribed under Louisiana law because he knew or should have known of his injuries and their cause more than one year before filing suit, even if the full extent of the injury was not immediately apparent.
• Bove v. Naples HMA, LLC
  196 So. 3d 411· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-04-01 ·cited 5×
  Mrs. Bove appealed the dismissal of her medical negligence complaint against a hospital and two physicians for failing to file within Florida's two-year statute of limitations. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that Mrs. Bove was bound by her own admission in the notice of in
• Laverde v. State
  933 So. 2d 1289· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-08-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for offenses involving fraud allows prosecution within one year of discovery, even if the discovery occurs before the initial limitation period expires.
• Stephens v. BAY Med. Ctr.
  691 So. 2d 1136· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-04-14 ·cited 4×
  Appellant sued for medical malpractice arising from injuries sustained during an assault in 1991, alleging negligence in his emergency treatment. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, but the appellate court reversed, finding a genuine issu
• Kahler v. C. Harry Kent, M.D.
  616 So. 2d 601· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-04-07 ·cited 4×
  In this medical malpractice appeal, the Fourth District reversed a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim as barred by the statute of limitations. The court held that a genuine factual dispute existed regarding when the plaintiff discovered her injury, precluding summa
• Weeland L. Hyde v. Hibernia Nat'l Bank IN Jefferson Parish & Credit Bureau Services-New Orleans
  861 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-06 ·cited 4×
  The statute of limitations for a Fair Credit Reporting Act negligence claim begins when the report causes injury, and for intentional violations, it begins at injury or discovery, whichever is later. Each transmission of an erroneous report constitutes a separate tort.
• Timmel v. Moss
  803 F.2d 519· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-27 ·cited 4×
  The statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff learned or should have learned the facts essential to his claim, including the suspicion of professional blundering.
• Hamilton v. Leonard K. Smith, M.D.
  773 F.2d 461· 2d Cir.· 1985-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that under Connecticut law, the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered actionable harm, not merely physical injury. The three-year statute of repose begins to run from the act or
• Cohen v. Paul Baxt, M.D.
  473 So. 2d 1340· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-03 ·cited 4×
  Cohen appealed a summary judgment dismissing his medical malpractice claim against the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund as time-barred. The Fourth District reversed, holding that the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice does not apply to the Fund and that ge
• Pavlak v. John R. Church
  727 F.2d 1425· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-12 ·cited 4×
  The two-year statute of limitations provided in 47 U.S.C. § 415(b) applies to all of the plaintiff's claims against the telephone company, including those arising under civil rights statutes. The court remanded for a determination of when the plaintiff discovered or should have d
• Galarza v. Zagury
  702 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that 'damage' under Puerto Rico's medical malpractice statute of limitations refers to the injury and its cause, not the awareness of negligence or malpractice.
• Bayless v. Philadelphia Nat'l League Club
  579 F.2d 37· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Pennsylvania begins to run from the time a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know the cause of their injury, not merely when the injury itself is discovered.
• Sharlene Hall and Ray Hall v. Musgrave
  517 F.2d 1163· 6th Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice action was barred by Kentucky's one-year statute of limitations because she discovered the injury and the need for surgical repair by May 5, 1969, well over a year before filing suit.
• Hobart E. Rosen v. Ira Spanierman & Ira Spanierman Gallery
  894 F.2d 28· 2d Cir.· 1990-01-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that breach of warranty claims are barred by the statute of limitations because the warranty did not explicitly extend to future performance, but the Rosens stated a claim for common law fraud.
• Hurley v. Lifsey
  310 So. 3d 1030· Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of a legal malpractice and fraud complaint. The court found that the trial court erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice based on the statute of limitations without sufficient factual basis from the complaint itsel
• Barrier v. JFK Med. Ctr. Ltd. P'ship
  169 So. 3d 185· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-06-17 ·cited 2×
  A mother appointed as emergency temporary guardian (ETG) of her comatose son filed a medical malpractice action on his behalf. The trial court dismissed the action as time-barred, concluding the statute of limitations commenced when the mother was appointed ETG. The appellate cou
• Phiniey Gray v. State
  803 So. 2d 755· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the State failed to meet its burden of proving the prosecution was commenced within the statute of limitations, as the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the date of discovery of the offenses by the aggrieved party.
• Ferris v. Haymore
  967 F.2d 946· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The Federal Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act allows only one statutory damage award per plaintiff, even with multiple transferors involved in odometer fraud.
• Vesta State Bank & State Bank of Belview v. Indep. State Bank OF Minn.
  924 F.2d 155· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's order granting summary judgment on the RICO claim was vacated and remanded because it was unclear if the district court applied the correct accrual rule for civil RICO claims.
• Williams v. Mordkofsky
  901 F.2d 158· D.C. Cir.· 1990-04-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellants' claims for negligence and breach of contract were time-barred by the District of Columbia's three-year statute of limitations, and the continuous representation rule did not toll the period. The claim for intentional breach of duty and conflict
• Ridgely v. Marsh
  866 F.2d 1526· D.C. Cir.· 1989-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Army Board's decision to dismiss claims based on the statute of limitations was arbitrary and capricious because there was no record evidence that the claimant discovered the alleged errors before the limitations period began.
• The City OF Omaha v. Hellmuth
  767 F.2d 457· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the City's claims against the architect were barred by the statute of limitations, as the City discovered or could have reasonably discovered the wall's deterioration more than one year before filing suit.
• Katz v. The Bank OF Cal.
  640 F.2d 1024· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for the alleged Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act violations commenced no later than the date of actual disclosure of the condition, not upon discovery of the violation.
• Arrington v. Walgreen Co.
  664 F. Supp. 2d 1230· M.D. Fla.· 2009-10-09 ·cited 1×
  A pharmacy's duty to use due care in filling prescriptions extends beyond robotic compliance with physician's instructions to include warning of known dangers or questioning unreasonable prescriptions.
• Smith v. Merrill Lynch
  700 F. Supp. 1092· S.D. Fla.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a claim under § 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and that the action was timely filed within the statute of limitations.
• Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth.
  537 F. Supp. 175· S.D. Fla.· 1982-03-23 ·cited 1×
  The court denied motions to dismiss the declaratory judgment complaint and the third-party complaint, and granted the motion for limited appearance of counsel.
• Horacio Pablo Martinez and Maria Mercedes Merino v. Price for Limo, LLC
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-07-01
  Supplemental complaints asserting fraudulent transfer claims in proceedings supplementary relate back to the original motion to commence proceedings supplementary under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c) when the claims arise from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrenc
• Daisha Ervin v. Sergio A. Alvarez, M.D.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-07-23
  The statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions runs from the time the incident is discovered or should have been discovered with due diligence, and a 90-day extension is automatically granted upon filing a petition and paying the required fee.
• Moise v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-21
  The court held that the plaintiff's FCRA claim was time-barred because she discovered the violation more than two years before filing suit, and amendment would be futile. The court also dismissed the Florida statutory claim for failure to state a claim.
• Pratt Corrugated Holdings, Inc v. Porter Pizza Box of Fla., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-11
  The court held that the plaintiff's First Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged claims under Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (FUFTA) to withstand a motion to dismiss.
• Wilkerson v. 3m Co.
  N.D. Fla.· 2022-03-08
  The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part, finding that the learned intermediary, sophisticated intermediary, superseding cause, and open and obvious danger defenses were inapplicable as a matter of law, but deferred ruling on the statute of limitations def
• Hill v. Fla. Pop, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-09
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim under the Florida Private Whistle-Blower Act was filed outside the applicable two-year statute of limitations and was therefore dismissed with prejudice.
• Friedman v. Hammer
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-05-20
  The court held that the accounting claim was dismissed as it is a remedy, not a cause of action, and plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law, while denying dismissal of the securities fraud and other claims.