Equitable Tolling

1,372 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Hobson v. Wilson
  737 F.2d 1· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 237×
  The court held that the District of Columbia and its employees can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and that certain claims against FBI defendants were barred by the statute of limitations, while others against MPD defendants and the District lacked sufficient evidence.
• Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  678 F.2d 992· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 206×
  The court held that the preconditions to filing a Title VII action, such as filing an EEOC complaint and receiving a right-to-sue letter, are not jurisdictional prerequisites and can be subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.
• Mrs. Roger McMillan Reeb v. Econ. Opportunity Atlanta, Inc.
  516 F.2d 924· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 190×
  The ninety-day period for filing an EEOC charge under Title VII is not a strict jurisdictional prerequisite and can be subject to equitable tolling and estoppel when the facts supporting the claim were not reasonably discoverable within that period, especially if the employer eng
• Emra Joseph Bonham v. Dresser Indus., Inc.
  569 F.2d 187· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-27 ·cited 146×
  The court held that the 180-day filing period under the ADEA is a statute of limitations subject to equitable tolling and estoppel, and that a state's shorter filing deadline does not bar a federal suit if filed within the federal period.
• Coke v. Gen. Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
  640 F.2d 584· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 141×
  The court holds that the 180-day filing requirement of the ADEA is subject to equitable tolling.
• Martin v. Secretary Walter A. McNEIL
  633 F.3d 1257· 11th Cir.· 2011-02-23 ·cited 132×
  Pablo San Martin, a Florida death row inmate, appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). San Martin argued that a two-week delay in receiving actual notice of the Supreme Court's den
• Nilsen v. The City OF Moss Point
  701 F.2d 556· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 132×
  The court held that the doctrine of res judicata should not bar a plaintiff's constitutional claim when the district court denied her motion to amend her original complaint to include that claim.
• MacHules v. Dep't OF Admin.
  523 So. 2d 1132· Fla.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 117×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to administrative appeals under Florida's career service rules, allowing an employee terminated for abandonment to file a late appeal to the Department of Administration when he was misled into pursuing
• Esplin v. Leland (Lee) Hirschi and Laverne Hirschi
  402 F.2d 94· 10th Cir.· 1968-09-30 ·cited 117×
  The court held that the class action was improperly dismissed, that the Investment Company Act claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, and that damages should be calculated as of the date of fraud discovery.
• Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  610 F.2d 241· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-21 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the EEOC's reconsideration of a determination vacated the initial right-to-sue notice, allowing a second notice and tolling the ninety-day filing period. It also held that dismissal of the § 1981 claim for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion withou
• Naton v. The Bank OF Cal.
  649 F.2d 691· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 103×
  The court held that the alleged unlawful practice occurred on the date of unequivocal notice of termination and last day of work, not the later 'effective termination date'. It also held that the ADEA does not authorize damages for pain and suffering.
• Thomasina Mack v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  871 F.2d 179· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were untimely filed under Title VII because she failed to demonstrate a discriminatory act within the 240-day limitations period or sufficient grounds for equitable tolling.
• Anne M. Dartt v. Shell OIL Co.
  539 F.2d 1256· 10th Cir.· 1976-07-22 ·cited 102×
  The 180-day notice period under the ADEA is not strictly jurisdictional and may be subject to equitable tolling and estoppel.
• Parrent v. Midwest RUG Mills, Inc.
  455 F.2d 123· 7th Cir.· 1972-01-26 ·cited 102×
• Hipp v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  252 F.3d 1208· 11th Cir.· 2001-05-29 ·cited 100×
  In this Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's certification of an opt-in class but reversed on the temporal scope of the action and the sufficiency of evidence. The court held tha
• Davis & COX v. Summa Corp.
  751 F.2d 1507· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-18 ·cited 99×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding evidence challenging the accuracy of billing statements, denying a jury trial, and applying res judicata and collateral estoppel to bar counterclaims. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Paul Jordan litigation
• Dusek v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co.
  832 F.3d 1243· 11th Cir.· 2016-08-10 ·cited 95×
  Madoff victims who invested through JPMorgan Chase accounts filed a class action against JPMorgan alleging control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and federal RICO claims. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that the Section 20(a)
• Smith v. Am. President Lines, Ltd.
  571 F.2d 102· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-26 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII claims against both APL and MEBA were time-barred due to untimely filing of charges with the EEOC, and equitable tolling was not warranted.
• Weaver v. CASA Gallardo, Inc.
  922 F.2d 1515· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 90×
  The court should not determine that discriminatory discharges are not covered by 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as the Supreme Court's holding in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union did not address discriminatory discharges.
• Cleda Jean Chappell v. Emco Mach. Works Co.
  601 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-06 ·cited 89×
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  463 F.2d 907· D.C. Cir.· 1972-06-08 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by failing to bargain with the union over its decision to relocate its plant and the effects of that decision, but affirmed the Board's finding that the relocation was not discriminatorily motivated.
• Posey v. Skyline Corp.
  702 F.2d 102· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 85×
  The court held that the plaintiff's affidavit stating he never saw the ADEA notice was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the employer conspicuously posted the required notice, thus the 180-day filing period was not tolled.
• Joannie Allen Dumas v. Town OF Mount Vernon
  612 F.2d 974· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-03 ·cited 83×
  The court held that claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), and 1986 were time-barred, and the Town of Mount Vernon was not an 'employer' under Title VII. However, the Title VII claim against the Personnel Board was improperly dismissed.
• Justice v. United States
  6 F.3d 1474· 11th Cir.· 1993-11-15 ·cited 80×
  Roger Justice brought a negligence action under the Public Vessels Act and Suits in Admiralty Act against the United States for injuries sustained aboard a government vessel. His original action, timely filed within the two-year statute of limitations, was dismissed without preju
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. The Seaboard Corp.
  677 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 79×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted on the § 10(b) claim due to a disputed issue of fact regarding the statute of limitations, but affirmed summary judgment on other claims based on the statute of limitations and the court's finding that the prospectus was
• David R. MAY Ad Litem of the Estate of Oscar T. Bradley v. Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co.
  771 So. 2d 1143· Fla.· 2000-11-16 ·cited 78×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit regarding whether sections 733.702 and 733.710 of the Florida Probate Code operate as statutes of nonclaim or limitations. The Court held that section 733.702 is a statute of limitations that bars u
• Liberles v. Cnty. OF Cook
  709 F.2d 1122· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the filing of an EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for suit under Title VII and that defendants waived objections by failing to raise them in the district court. The court affirmed summary judgment on the merits of the disparate impact claim but
• Hillard H. Aldrich and Amy Aldrich v. McCULLOCH Props., Inc.
  627 F.2d 1036· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-05 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim regarding federal securities law violations, but affirmed the dismissal of claims under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA) due to its st
• Tomera v. Galt
  511 F.2d 504· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-05 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim for securities fraud under Rule 10b-5 and that the claims were not time-barred due to fraudulent concealment tolling the statute of limitations.
• Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
  920 F.2d 446· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 71×
  The statute of limitations for an age discrimination claim begins to run when the employee is informed of the termination decision, not when the termination takes effect or when the employee fully realizes the discriminatory nature of the decision. Equitable tolling requires dili
• Rasimas v. Mich. Dep't OF Mental Health
  714 F.2d 614· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 71×
  The majority agreed that the judgment must be vacated and remanded due to a subsequent Supreme Court decision impacting the jurisdictional prerequisite for filing charges with the EEOC. However, the dissenting judge argued the majority improperly reversed the district court inste
• Suslick v. Rothschild Sec. Corp.
  741 F.2d 1000· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 68×
  The court held that while the appellant sufficiently alleged active concealment to toll the statute of limitations for a period, the overall limitations period still expired, barring the claim; however, the award of attorneys' fees was reversed due to a lack of subjective bad fai
• Martinez v. Verne ORR
  738 F.2d 1107· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the thirty-day limitations period for federal employees to file a Title VII action is not jurisdictional and may be subject to equitable tolling. The EEOC notice was misleading, and equitable considerations allowed the plaintiff's late filing.
• Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. S.A.P.
  835 So. 2d 1091· Fla.· 2002-11-27 ·cited 66×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel can toll the statute of limitations in negligence actions against the state under section 768.28(13), even though the statute does not expressly mention equitable estoppel. The Court rejected the state's argum
• Goldie Satz v. ITT Fin. Corp.
  619 F.2d 738· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the appellant's EEOC charge was timely filed because her complaint alleged a continuing course of discriminatory conduct.
• Aronsen v. Crown Zellerbach
  662 F.2d 584· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the determination of when an unlawful employment practice occurred is a factual question, not a matter of law, and thus summary judgment was inappropriate. The limitations period begins when the employee knows or should know of the unlawful practice.
• Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  187 So. 3d 1219· Fla.· 2016-03-17 ·cited 62×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that individual members of the decertified Engle tobacco class action may seek punitive damages under theories of negligence and strict liability in their subsequent individual lawsuits, overruling the First District's contrary holding and resolving
• Bethel v. Burtell M. Jefferson
  589 F.2d 631· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-09 ·cited 62×
  The court held that while District of Columbia police officers must generally use Section 706 of Title VII, requiring EEOC involvement, the confusion surrounding the proper statutory route excuses the appellants' failure to file with the EEOC. The court also found that the allege
• Cook v. The Deltona Corp.
  753 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 61×
  The court held that Deltona's performance was not rendered impossible by increased regulation, affirming the directed verdict for breach of contract, but remanded for determination of the date Deltona knew development was impossible to calculate damages.
• Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Wag-Aero, Inc.
  741 F.2d 925· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 61×
  The court stated that the standard of review for a determination of laches, particularly in intellectual property cases, should be 'clearly erroneous,' not 'abuse of discretion.'
• Cooper v. Griffin B. Bell
  628 F.2d 1208· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the first intra-agency filing period for an employment discrimination charge under Title VII is subject to equitable extension, and a plaintiff may be able to establish estoppel against the government if they relied on false advice from a government official.
• Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard
  678 F.2d 1211· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the denial of class certification and most judgments, but reversed the judgment as to Pinkard's § 1981 retaliatory discharge claim.
• Holland v. Florida
  11th Cir.· 2010-06-14 ·cited 57×
  Equitable tolling is available under AEDPA, and attorney misconduct not attributable to the petitioner, such as abandonment, can constitute extraordinary circumstances.
• Debora D. Gordon v. Nat'l Youth Work Alliance
  675 F.2d 356· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the 90-day filing period for Title VII claims is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling, and thus should be addressed under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1).
• Schaefer v. First Nat'l Bank OF Lincolnwood
  509 F.2d 1287· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-30 ·cited 57×
  The court held that Rule 10b-5 claims are not time-barred due to equitable tolling and that remedies under various securities provisions are cumulative. The court also affirmed the dismissal of antitrust claims.
• Adolph Kizas v. Webster
  707 F.2d 524· D.C. Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 56×
  The court held that federal employees do not possess vested property rights in a former 'special preference' for promotion, and that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination claims, requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Leake v. Univ. OF Cincinnati
  605 F.2d 255· 6th Cir.· 1979-09-04 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the 180-day time limit for filing a Title VII claim with the EEOC was equitably tolled due to the university's assurances during negotiations that it would not assert a statute of limitations defense.
• Goodman v. City Prods. Corp.
  425 F.2d 702· 6th Cir.· 1970-05-14 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the 30-day period to file a lawsuit after receiving notice from the EEOC is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite and not subject to equitable extension by the courts.
• Short v. Belleville Shoe Mfg. Co.
  908 F.2d 1385· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-30 ·cited 54×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, expresses reservations about the principle of borrowing limitation periods from one statute for use with another that lacks its own.
• Oaxaca v. Egger L. Roscoe
  641 F.2d 386· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-03 ·cited 54×
  Failure to provide timely notice to an EEO counselor does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction, but instead raises issues that may be subject to equitable tolling or waiver.