Equitable Tolling

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

• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. James Forsythe & Alan Tesche v. C.A. No. 1091-VCL ESC Fund Mgmt. Co. (U.S., Inc.
  Del. Ch.· 2007-10-09
  The court held that the partnership agreement, not common law, provided the relevant standard of care for the general partner's oversight duty. Because the general partner delegated nearly all managerial responsibilities to conflicted entities, its residual duty of oversight requ
• Johnson v. McDonough
  480 F. Supp. 2d 1309· S.D. Fla.· 2007-03-29
  The court held that the federal habeas corpus petition was untimely filed, as it was filed more than one year after the petitioner's conviction became final, and the tolling provisions did not apply.
• Johnson v. McDonough
  480 F. Supp. 2d 1314· S.D. Fla.· 2007-03-29
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas petition was untimely because it was filed more than one year after his conviction and sentence became final, and the tolling provisions did not apply.
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. IN RE Tyson Foods
  Del. Ch.· 2007-02-06
  The court partially grants the motion to dismiss, dismissing Counts I (consulting contracts) and VIII (misrepresentations in 2004 proxy statement) entirely, and Count VII (contempt) as procedurally improper. Count IV (related-party transactions) is dismissed except for transactio
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. Johannes R. Krahmer & Betty P. Krahmer v. C.A. No. 606-N Christie's Inc.
  Del. Ch.· 2006-10-17
  The court granted summary judgment for the auction house, finding that the purchasers failed to present evidence of scienter for their fraud claim and that their claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Even assuming the painting was a forgery, the auction house acted in g
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. Johannes R. Krahmer & Betty P. Krahmer v. C.A. No. 606-N Christie's Inc.
  Del. Ch.· 2006-06-02
  The court denied the purchasers' motion to amend their petition for rescission. The proposed new claims of mutual mistake of fact, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive fraud were found to be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Furthermore, the court determin
• Tello v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
  430 F. Supp. 2d 1262· M.D. Fla.· 2006-01-25
  The court held that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not revive claims that were already time-barred before its effective date, irrespective of inquiry notice.
• Morse v. Simley Corp.
  406 F. Supp. 2d 1286· M.D. Fla.· 2005-12-22
  The court held that the plaintiff's lawsuit was time-barred because it was filed more than 90 days after receiving the EEOC's right-to-sue letter via fax.
• State v. Benny Chesnut
  894 So. 2d 276· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-01-07
  The Florida Department of Corrections appealed a Public Employees Relations Commission order reinstating a former employee and awarding back pay based on equitable tolling of the appeal deadline. The court reversed, holding that the Department's termination letter accurately stat
• Labady v. Gemini Air Cargo, Inc.
  350 F. Supp. 2d 1002· S.D. Fla.· 2004-11-22
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII race discrimination claim was time-barred due to failure to file within the 90-day period after receiving the right-to-sue letter, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory failure to promote und
• Cotton v. Martin Cnty.
  306 F. Supp. 2d 1182· S.D. Fla.· 2004-02-27
  The court granted summary judgment for the County on federal claims, denied the plaintiff's motions, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Cal. Pub. Emps'.
  Del. Ch.· 2002-05-28
  The Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. Demand was excused for certain derivative claims, including entrenchment and the CEI acquisition, based on the Aronson test's prongs of director disinterest/independence and the validity of b
• Temple v. Gorman
  201 F. Supp. 2d 1238· S.D. Fla.· 2002-01-29
  The court held that the Section 12(a)(1) claim was time-barred and that state securities law claims were preempted by federal law.
• Turner v. Singletary
  46 F. Supp. 2d 1238· N.D. Fla.· 1999-01-26
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is not deemed filed until it is received by the clerk of court, and mailing it on the last day of the limitation period does not constitute timely filing. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner h
• Dozier v. COE
  699 So. 2d 722· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-07-11
  The court held that the appellants could not invoke the single-filing rule because their own claims were time-barred and they could not have filed a valid charge when the other plaintiff filed his.
• Watkis v. Am. Nat'l Ins.
  89 F. Supp. 550· M.D. Fla.· 1997-06-13
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, warranting summary judgment for the defendant.
• Smith Barney, Inc. v. Hyland
  891 F. Supp. 247· M.D. Fla.· 1997-06-09
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to enforce judgment, finding that while past noncompliance with court orders would be excused, future noncompliance would constitute contempt.
• In re THE Thomas Lawrence Reeves Irrevocable Tr. Under Agreement Dated C.A. No. 8071-ML February 26
  Del. Ch.· 1997-03-10
  The Court of Chancery properly granted summary judgment in favor of the corporate trustee, BNY Mellon, finding that the beneficiaries' and individual co-trustees' claims were barred by laches and the statute of limitations. The court determined that the respondents had actual and
• Johnson v. Mortham
  142 F.R.D. 1· N.D. Fla.· 1995-12-12
• Zipperer v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty.
  891 F. Supp. 583· M.D. Fla.· 1995-06-27
  The court held that actions for attorneys' fees under the IDEA are subject to a 30-day statute of limitations, analogous to appeals from administrative hearings.
• Underwood v. City of Fort Myers
  890 F. Supp. 1018· M.D. Fla.· 1995-06-16
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII and retaliation claims could proceed, but the Section 1983 claim was dismissed due to failure to allege a policy or custom.
• Of Chancery of the State of Del. Leo E. Strine. JR. v. I C E - C H A N C E L L O R February 7
  Del. Ch.· 1995-05-11
  The court denied Ambase Corporation's motion for reargument, affirming its prior decision to dismiss Ambase's claims against City Investing Liquidating Trust and its affiliates. The court found that Ambase failed to demonstrate a misunderstanding of material fact or misapplicatio
• Cook v. Columbian Chems. Co.
  997 F.2d 1239· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-09
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations for a hybrid § 301/fair representation suit begins to run when the union's failure to pursue the grievance or arbitration becomes final, not when the employee receives actual notice.
• Charter Twp. OF Huron v. Richards
  997 F.2d 1168· 6th Cir.· 1993-07-08
  The court held that while the FAA's initial failure to prepare an Environmental Assessment for the 1989 air traffic changes might have been erroneous, subsequent comprehensive environmental studies and decisions rendered the petitions moot, and the FAA's actions did not violate t
• United States v. M.J. Kelley Corp.
  995 F.2d 656· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-15
  The court held that the Miller Act one-year limitations period was equitably tolled by the subcontractor's good-faith filing in a district court with proper subject matter jurisdiction, and that the sureties were bound by the arbitration award against the principal due to privity
• Odessa Nunnally v. MacCAUSLAND
  996 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-10
  The court held that the 30-day limitations period under the CSRA for federal employees' discrimination claims is subject to equitable tolling, and the plaintiff raised a genuine issue of fact regarding whether her mental condition warranted tolling.
• The Est. OF Jose M. Solis-Rivera v. United States
  993 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-11
  The court vacated the dismissal and remanded to the district court to decide whether to allow the case to proceed, considering the statute of limitations issue.
• DuFRESNE'S Auto Serv., Inc. v. Shell OIL Co.
  992 F.2d 920· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-30
  The court held that the dealers' claims under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) were barred by the one-year statute of limitations, as the cause of action accrued when their franchise agreements expired or when Shell assigned them to Panoco, not when Shell later assert
• Jefferson v. Reliance Standard Life Ins.
  818 F. Supp. 1523· M.D. Fla.· 1993-04-20
  The court held that while ERISA and COBRA do not require continuation of life insurance benefits, the conversion period for life insurance may be equitably tolled if the insured became incapacitated during that period.
• Slaaten v. United States
  990 F.2d 1038· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-08
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim did not accrue until the Interior Board of Land Appeals decision became final, thus complying with the Federal Tort Claims Act's two-year statute of limitations.
• Easley v. Pettibone Mich. Corp.
  990 F.2d 905· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-08
  An action filed in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is voidable, not void, and must be refiled within 30 days after the stay is lifted to comply with the statute of limitations.
• Durning v. Citibank
  990 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-07
  The court held that the plaintiffs' securities fraud claims were time-barred under the Lampf decision and that Section 27A did not revive them because they failed to properly move for reinstatement. The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a pattern of racketee
• Widdoss v. Sec'y OF the Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  989 F.2d 1170· Fed. Cir.· 1993-03-24
  The court held that the thirty-day time limit for seeking review of a special master's decision is not jurisdictional and may be subject to waiver or tolling in the interest of justice.
• Merlin Jay Phillips to be Appointed Personal Representative of the Estate of Brian T. Phillips v. Barbara Heine for R. Ward Terrell
  984 F.2d 489· D.C. Cir.· 1993-02-09
  The court held that a cause of action under the Death on the High Seas Act accrues at the time of probable death, not upon a judicial declaration of death or appointment of a representative for the defendant's decedent, and equitable tolling does not grant an automatic extension
• Sterling v. United States
  985 F.2d 411· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-03
  The court held that a dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, which effectively bars refiling due to a statute of limitations, should be reviewed with the same standard as a dismissal with prejudice. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
• Mercado-Garcia v. Ponce Fed. Bank
  979 F.2d 890· 1st Cir.· 1992-11-19
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish claims for age discrimination under ECOA, breach of contract, COBRA violations, and ADEA, affirming the district court's grants of summary judgment and dismissals.
• Iacono v. Off. OF Pers. Mgmt.
  974 F.2d 1326· Fed. Cir.· 1992-09-15
  The court held that the filing deadline in the Spouse Equity Act is a condition of eligibility, not a statute of limitations, and therefore cannot be equitably tolled.
• Daugherity v. Traylor Bros., Inc.
  970 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-06
  The court held that the district court erred in allowing the defendant to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies due to undue delay and prejudice, but affirmed the summary judgment on the merits because the plaintiff faile
• Jarrett v. Kassel
  972 F.2d 1415· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-04
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, as the plaintiffs' claims under certain sections of the Commodity Exchange Act were not time-barred due to fraudulent concealment. However, claims under other sections w
• Polsby v. Chase
  970 F.2d 1360· 4th Cir.· 1992-07-29
  The court held that a former employee cannot bring a Title VII retaliation claim against a former employer for post-employment actions, and that Polsby's allegations did not support a RICO claim.
• Arens v. G.R. Mfg. Co.
  968 F.2d 603· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-01
  The court held that the dismissal of the first action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper, but the dismissal of the second action as time-barred was improper for six plaintiffs whose last work dates were not established.
• Hamilton v. Komatsu Dresser Indus.
  964 F.2d 600· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-12
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act were untimely because they failed to file charges with the EEOC within the 300-day limitations period, and equitable estoppel did not apply.
• Held v. Davis
  778 F. Supp. 527· S.D. Fla.· 1991-11-19
  The court held that the limitation period established in Lampf v. Gilbertson applies retroactively to all claims not finally adjudicated, and that the plaintiffs' federal securities claims were time-barred under this new rule.
• Richardson v. Frank
  975 F.2d 1433· 10th Cir.· 1991-10-23
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the plaintiff's circumstances warrant equitable tolling or estoppel of the time limitations for filing an administrative complaint.
• Flores v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  945 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-22
  The sixty-day period for filing a civil action challenging a Social Security Act denial begins to run from the claimant's receipt of notice, not the attorney's receipt of notice.
• Higgins v. NEW York Stock Exch., Inc.
  942 F.2d 829· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-26
  An antitrust cause of action accrues when the injury occurs, not when regulatory issues are resolved, and initiating administrative proceedings does not toll the statute of limitations unless it is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
• Rose v. Dole
  945 F.2d 1331· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-28
  The court held that the employee's request for equitable tolling of the limitations period for filing an unlawful termination complaint was properly denied because ignorance of the law and insufficient excuses for delay do not warrant tolling.
• Jacinto S. Pinat v. Off. OF Pers. Mgmt.
  931 F.2d 1544· Fed. Cir.· 1991-04-29
  The court held that the appeal was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the petitioner received notice of the Board's final decision.
• Evans v. T.W. Servs.
  930 F.2d 612· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-11
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title VII and the MHRA, and her state law claim was time-barred, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Julianne Farrell and Edda Martin v. Bank OF NEW Hampshire-Portsmouth
  929 F.2d 871· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-08
  The statute of limitations for an Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim accrues from the date of the discriminatory occurrence, not from the date the aggrieved party receives notification of the act.