Equitable Tolling

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

• Puckett v. Tenn. Eastman Co.
  889 F.2d 1481· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-07 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims, holding that the state law claim was time-barred due to an election of remedies, the Title VII claim was properly dismissed for failure to obtain a right-to-sue letter, and the RICO claim failed for lack of separate entities and an
• Miles v. Dep't OF THE Army
  881 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that an amendment substituting the proper government official as defendant relates back to the original filing date if the U.S. Attorney received timely notice, and that the district court abused its discretion by failing to rule on the motion for appointed counsel
• ICG Petroleum, Inc. v. United States Dep't OF Energy & John S. Herrington
  883 F.2d 80· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 (PODRA) imposed a mandatory time limit for seeking judicial review of certain agency actions, and appellants' failure to file within that period barred their claim.
• de Luna v. Farris
  841 F.2d 312· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the amended Arizona statute governing tolling of the statute of limitations for imprisonment applied, and the plaintiff's claim was time-barred.
• Morse v. The Daily Press, Inc.
  826 F.2d 1351· 4th Cir.· 1987-07-09 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the appellants' claims were time-barred under the ADEA, as they failed to file their EEOC charges within the statutory 180-day period and did not establish grounds for equitable tolling or estoppel.
• Cook v. Providence Hosp.
  820 F.2d 176· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a plaintiff's unsubstantiated denial of receipt of a right-to-sue letter is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact when there is overwhelming evidence of notice, and equitable tolling is not warranted.
• Sousa v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. & Samuel Kaynard
  817 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the thirty-day period for filing suit did not begin to run until the claimant actually received the decision, not when notice was constructively received.
• Summer v. Land & Leisure, Inc.
  571 F. Supp. 380· S.D. Fla.· 1983-09-14 ·cited 5×
  The court dismissed pendent state claims against individual defendants and Land & Leisure due to lack of pending federal claims, but denied motions to dismiss federal securities claims against Raymond James and Arthur Young, finding they stated valid causes of action under Sectio
• Middleton v. Silverman
  430 So. 2d 981· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-05-10 ·cited 5×
  A plaintiff filed a civil complaint one day late due to the courthouse closing because of civil disorder during the statute of limitations deadline. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that a timely filing attempt frustrated by courthouse closure due to civil disturbance sa
• Harper v. The United States
  312 F.2d 436· Ct. Cl.· 1963-01-11 ·cited 5×
• In re Bowles
  935 F.3d 1210· 11th Cir.· 2019-08-22 ·cited 4×
  Gary Ray Bowles, a death row inmate convicted of murder in 1994, sought authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive federal habeas petition claiming intellectual disability and thus ineligibility for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. The court denied his applic
• Gracita Chang v. Carnival Corp.
  839 F.3d 993· 11th Cir.· 2016-10-06 ·cited 4×
  A cruise passenger who slipped and fell on a Carnival cruise ship filed suit more than one year after the incident, missing the one-year limitation period in her cruise ticket. The passenger argued that equitable tolling should apply because she had timely filed suit in state cou
• Hummer v. Adams Homes OF Nw. Fla., Inc.
  198 So. 3d 750· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-02-26 ·cited 4×
  Hummer appealed the dismissal of his defective drywall action against his home builder and drywall subcontractor. The court affirmed dismissal of property damage claims as barred by the statute of limitations but reversed dismissal of personal injury claims, finding the complaint
• Jerry ULM Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC
  78 So. 3d 20· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-12-09 ·cited 4×
  Chrysler Group sought to establish a successor Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep dealership (North Tampa) to replace a bankrupt dealership (Wilson), claiming exemption from statutory notice and protest requirements. The Florida appellate court reversed the agency's decision, holding that the s
• Plaza Court, L.P. v. Baker-Chaput
  17 So. 3d 720· Fla. 5th DCA· 2009-06-26 ·cited 4×
  Plaza Court appealed a trial court judgment awarding rescission and damages to condominium purchasers under the Federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA). The court affirmed, holding that Plaza's two-year construction completion commitment was illusory due to ove
• Zack v. Crosby
  607 F. Supp. 2d 1291· N.D. Fla.· 2008-11-17 ·cited 4×
  A new constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court, even if retroactively applicable, only revives claims based on that specific right and does not revive previously time-barred claims.
• Watson v. Brevard Cnty. Clerk OF The Cir. Court & Fla. Comm'n on Human Relations
  937 So. 2d 1264· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's arguments for equitable tolling and a five-day mailing extension were without merit, and therefore affirmed the dismissal of her employment discrimination complaint.
• Mikel K. Whiting v. Fla. Dep't OF LAW Enf't
  849 So. 2d 1149· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-07-18 ·cited 4×
  Mikel Whiting, a dismissed FDLE employee, appealed his termination to the Public Employees Service Commission but filed his appeal one day late. The court affirmed the dismissal of his appeal because he failed to timely file within the statutory 14-day deadline and did not qualif
• Est. of Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios
  157 F. Supp. 2d 1345· S.D. Fla.· 2001-08-10 ·cited 4×
  The Estate of Winston Cabello and family members sued Armando Fernandez-Larios under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), and international law for the October 17, 1973 extrajudicial killing and torture of Winston Cabello during Chile's military
• Zillyette v. Cap. One Fin. Corp.
  1 F. Supp. 2d 1435· M.D. Fla.· 1998-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's ADA claim was time-barred due to failure to file within ninety days of receiving notice of the right-to-sue letter, and that the plaintiff failed to establish knowledge of his HIV diagnosis by the employer for a discriminatory discharge claim.
• Cooke v. Manufactured Homes
  998 F.2d 1256· 4th Cir.· 1993-07-09 ·cited 4×
  Summary judgment was proper for claims accruing after December 17, 1988, as the market was fully apprised of the company's financial condition, but was improper for claims accruing before that date due to a mix of information creating a genuine issue of material fact. Section 27A
• Oropallo v. United States
  994 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a taxpayer's claim for a refund is barred by the statute of limitations, and the equitable tolling doctrine does not apply to the specific limitations periods at issue.
• Baker v. The Bd. OF Regents OF the State of Kan. & Univ. of Kan. Med. School-School of Med.
  991 F.2d 628· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's federal claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations, and the trial court did not err in dismissing the state law contract claim.
• Brown v. Walt Disney World Co.
  805 F. Supp. 1554· M.D. Fla.· 1992-11-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while race was a motivating factor in employment decisions, the employer would have made the same termination decision based on performance issues alone.
• Favorite v. Marine Pers. & Provisioning, Inc.
  955 F.2d 382· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the USNS SEALIFT CARIBBEAN was a public vessel and the operating company was an agent of the United States, making the plaintiff's exclusive remedy against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act, and that the two-year statute of limitations barred
• King Smith, Jr. v. City OF Chicago Heights
  951 F.2d 834· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Illinois' fraudulent concealment statute does not apply when the identity of the tortfeasor is concealed, but remanded for consideration of equitable tolling and estoppel.
• Boronat v. Sullivan
  788 F. Supp. 557· S.D. Fla.· 1992-01-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that its prior order of remand did not constitute a final judgment for the purpose of filing an application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and therefore, the court retained jurisdiction to enter a final judgment.
• W.M. Scheerer v. Rose State Coll.
  950 F.2d 661· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there is no cause of action against the EEOC for misprocessing claims and that claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, § 1982, and Title VII were properly dismissed as untimely or lacking factual support.
• Wilder v. Meyer
  779 F. Supp. 164· S.D. Fla.· 1991-10-08 ·cited 4×
  Summary judgment is granted for claims barred by the statute of limitations and denied for claims where genuine issues of material fact remain.
• Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Prof'l Real Est. Invs., Inc.
  944 F.2d 1525· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 4×
  The Ninth Circuit held that a lawsuit brought with probable cause is not a sham under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, even if the plaintiff did not subjectively believe it was meritorious, and affirmed summary judgment for the movie studios on antitrust counterclaims.
• Dean v. Veterans Admin. Reg'l Off.
  943 F.2d 667· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-06 ·cited 4×
  A complaint is considered filed for statute of limitations purposes when it is presented to the clerk's office with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, even if not formally stamped until later. However, the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to name the proper
• Schneider v. TRW, Inc.
  938 F.2d 986· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 4×
  Summary judgment for the employer is affirmed because the employee failed to raise a triable issue of material fact regarding her claims, including that her layoff was due to a legitimate reduction in force and not discriminatory reasons.
• Charles M. Doyle & 4 v. The United States
  931 F.2d 1546· Fed. Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Government's delay in paying overtime did not constitute a willful violation of the FLSA, thus the two-year statute of limitations applied and barred most claims, and that the Government's sovereign immunity barred claims for interest or delay damages.
• Lavery v. Marsh
  918 F.2d 1022· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the thirty-day limitations period from Title VII applies to federal employee age discrimination claims under the ADEA, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to equitable tolling.
• McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Polk Cnty.
  750 F. Supp. 1119· M.D. Fla.· 1990-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that most claims stated a claim for relief, but dismissed specific 10b-5(b) and Section 12(1) claims for certain plaintiffs due to failure to plead misrepresentation or untimeliness.
• Vargas v. Glades Gen. Hosp.
  566 So. 2d 282· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-07-25 ·cited 4×
  Parents of a minor child appealed summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice suit against Glades General Hospital, claiming the statute of limitations was tolled by fraudulent concealment or lack of notice of injury. The court affirmed, holding that the parents had act
• In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings IN Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig. State OF Ariz. v. Standard OIL Co. OF Cal.
  906 F.2d 432· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to fix prices, and the defendants' alternative explanation of interdependent pricing was not sufficiently plausible to warrant summary ju
• Chaffin v. Rheem Mfg. Co.
  904 F.2d 1269· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim regarding the 1984 promotion was time-barred and that the employer provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for denying the 1988 promotion, which the plaintiff failed to prove were pretextual. Class certification was also properly
• Soto v. United States Postal Serv.
  905 F.2d 537· 1st Cir.· 1990-06-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's discrimination claim against the U.S. Postal Service was properly dismissed because the Postmaster General was the required defendant and the statute of limitations barred amendment after the plaintiff failed to serve the proper party with
• Abel H. Hernandez v. Aldridge
  902 F.2d 386· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 4×
  A complaint submitted to the district court clerk within the statutory time limit is considered 'filed' for purposes of the 30-day requirement, even if the clerk delays the formal filing.
• Washington v. Ball
  890 F.2d 413· 11th Cir.· 1989-12-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the thirty-day time limit for filing a Title VII action was subject to equitable tolling under the peculiar facts of this case.
• Temengil v. Tr. Territory OF the Pac. Islands
  881 F.2d 647· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear claims against the Trust Territory because they were essentially suits against the United States, and no waiver of sovereign immunity was found.
• Bendeck v. Allen Berry, D.D.S.
  546 So. 2d 14· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-05-16 ·cited 4×
• JAY v. Int'l Salt Co.
  868 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's age discrimination claim under Louisiana law was subject to a one-year statute of limitations that began to run from the date of notification, not the date of discharge.
• Hill v. Imports
  869 F.2d 1122· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The ninety-day limitation period for filing a Title VII action is subject to equitable tolling, but tolling is not warranted when the plaintiff failed to notify the EEOC of a change of address.
• Young v. Clantech, Inc.
  863 F.2d 300· 3d Cir.· 1988-12-23 ·cited 4×
  The timely filing of a lawsuit in a court that lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant does not toll the applicable New Jersey statute of limitations.
• Alexander Leon Banks v. Rockwell Int'l N. Am. Aircraft Operations
  855 F.2d 324· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the ninety-day period for filing a Title VII action begins to run five days after the EEOC mails the notice of right to sue, and equitable tolling does not apply when the claimant fails to notify the EEOC of an address change.
• The State OF Tex. v. Allan Constr. Co., Inc.
  851 F.2d 1526· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-17 ·cited 4×
  Acts taken to conceal wrongful conduct can support fraudulent concealment even if they occur during the offense and further it, and bid-rigging is not inherently self-concealing, requiring proof of affirmative acts of concealment.
• State Bank OF Coloma & Raymond & Rita Janecko v. Nat'l Flood Ins. Program & Gen. Julius W. Becton
  851 F.2d 817· 6th Cir.· 1988-07-11 ·cited 4×
  The court should not penalize the client for the lawyer's errors in naming the defendant, as the statute of limitations is tolled when the correct party appears and defends.
• Atchison v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  851 F.2d 1432· D.C. Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that claims for rail rate refunds under the Staggers Rail Act accrue upon delivery or tender of delivery of the shipment, as mandated by statute, and not upon later clarification of legal entitlement.