Equitable Tolling

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

• Wolfolk v. Rivera
  729 F.2d 1114· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to fall within an exception to the thirty-day time limit for filing an administrative discrimination claim, based on when facts supporting the claim became apparent.
• Leonard Lawson (81-3722) v. Truck Drivers
  698 F.2d 250· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the 90-day Ohio statute of limitations for vacating arbitration awards applies to unfair representation actions against unions, and that this rule applies retroactively to pending cases.
• Nettie G. Carlile v. S. Routt Sch. Dist. RE 3-J
  652 F.2d 981· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the 90-day filing requirement for Title VII actions is generally jurisdictional, the district court's order deeming the action commenced upon the filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis was binding, preventing dismissal based on the late filing.
• Nielsen v. W. Elec. Co., Inc.
  603 F.2d 741· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by failure to file a timely notice of intent to sue, and that the proceeding below was properly treated as a trial on the merits of equitable tolling.
• Thomas v. Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  992 F.3d 1162· 11th Cir.· 2021-03-31 ·cited 33×
  William Greg Thomas, a Florida death row inmate, challenged the timeliness of his federal habeas petition, which was filed nearly nine months after AEDPA's one-year deadline expired because his appointed counsel, Mary Catherine Bonner, deliberately delayed filing to use his case
• Mondy v. Secretary OF THE Army
  845 F.2d 1051· D.C. Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed timely and in forma pauperis, naming the head of the unit as defendant, commenced the action, and subsequent errors by the court and Marshal should not bar the suit.
• Am. Int'l Underwriters v. The Cont'l Ins. Co.
  843 F.2d 1253· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-13 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from hearing the case under the Colorado River doctrine and in dismissing the repetitive lawsuit, as exceptional circumstances justified abstention and prevented the plaintiff from circumventing rem
• Hyatt v. Heckler
  807 F.2d 376· 4th Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the principles of Bowen v. City of New York regarding waiver of administrative exhaustion and equitable tolling of the 60-day review period apply to claimants denied benefits due to the Social Security Administration's policy of nonacquiescence in circuit law,
• Sperry v. Barggren
  523 F.2d 708· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-02 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the plaintiffs could have discovered the alleged fraud with due care, thus reversing the summary judgment.
• Casimir W. Dyniewicz v. United States
  742 F.2d 484· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while the agency's denial letter was defective for failing to inform claimants of the six-month filing period, the claim was nevertheless time-barred because it was not filed with the agency within two years of accrual.
• FOX v. The Eaton Corp.
  615 F.2d 716· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the 90-day time period for filing a Title VII claim should not be tolled in this case.
• Emmett J. Stebbins v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
  469 F.2d 268· 4th Cir.· 1972-11-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was not timely filed and there was no basis for tolling the statute of limitations due to his intentional disregard of venue provisions.
• Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  106 So. 3d 456· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-10-24 ·cited 31×
  In this Engle-progeny wrongful death case, the court addresses whether class members can pursue punitive damages under negligence and strict liability theories, which were not timely asserted in the original Engle class action. The court holds that progeny plaintiffs cannot asser
• THE Florida BAR v. Bartley Charles Miller
  863 So. 2d 231· Fla.· 2003-10-02 ·cited 31×
  The Florida Bar disciplined attorney Bartley Charles Miller for engaging in a pattern of deliberate deception and concealment of evidence during federal litigation over his client's employment discrimination claim. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's findings of guil
• Gray v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  858 F.2d 610· 10th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the EEOC's actions in scheduling a meeting date beyond the limitations period constituted active misleading, entitling the plaintiffs to equitable tolling of the 180-day filing period.
• Pinkie J. Boddy v. Dean
  821 F.2d 346· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-18 ·cited 31×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the 30-day time limit for contacting an EEO counselor is not a jurisdictional prerequisite and is subject to equitable tolling, and that Count II of the amended complaint related back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c).
• Espinoza v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  754 F.2d 1247· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-11 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the ninety-day period for filing suit begins when the right-to-sue notice is received at the claimant's designated address, unless equitable tolling applies.
• Campbell v. The Upjohn Co.
  676 F.2d 1122· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-29 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations because he failed to demonstrate the requisite diligence in discovering his cause of action, even if fraudulent concealment was alleged.
• Ward v. Caulk
  650 F.2d 1144· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the availability of a federal statutory remedy, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, precludes a constitutional cause of action against state defendants, even if the plaintiff fails to timely pursue the statutory remedy. It also held that a continuing violation requires
• Torres v. Superintendent OF the Police OF Puerto RICO
  893 F.2d 404· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim for wrongful termination was time-barred because the administrative action did not toll the statute of limitations, and their malicious prosecution claim failed because the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of a const
• Bell v. Veterans Admin. Hosp.
  826 F.2d 357· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant failed to name the proper party defendant within the statutory limitations period, and the complaint could not be amended to relate back under Rule 15(c).
• Mull v. Arco Durethene Plastics, Inc.
  784 F.2d 284· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the 180-day limitations period for filing an ADEA claim begins to run when the employee receives unequivocal notice of termination, regardless of whether the notice is oral or written, and that equitable tolling or estoppel are not warranted in this case.
• Bailey v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
  774 F.2d 1577· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-04 ·cited 30×
  Filing a suit under the Death on the High Seas Act in state court does not toll the running of a contractual time bar for an exclusively federal claim.
• Vaught v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.
  745 F.2d 407· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff's EEOC filing was untimely because he knew or should have known facts supporting a discrimination charge more than 180 days before filing, and equitable tolling did not apply.
• Smallwood v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  661 F.2d 303· 4th Cir.· 1981-10-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the airline's age-35 hiring limit for pilots was not a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) and reversed the trial court's decision.
• In re Engle Cases 4432 Individual Tobacco v. Various Tobacco Cos.
  767 F.3d 1082· 11th Cir.· 2014-09-10 ·cited 29×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of 588 personal injury cases filed on behalf of deceased smokers, 160 loss of consortium cases derived from those personal injury cases, and 2 wrongful death cases filed outside the statute of limitations. The Wilner Firm filed these ca
• Lugo v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  750 F.3d 1198· 11th Cir.· 2014-04-24 ·cited 29×
  Daniel Lugo, a Florida death-row inmate, appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and also appealed the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion seeking to vacate that dismissal. The Eleve
• In re Hill
  715 F.3d 284· 11th Cir.· 2013-04-22 ·cited 29×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the state of Georgia should not be allowed to execute Warren Lee Hill, a mentally retarded individual, despite procedural bars under AEDPA. The dissent emphasizes that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the execution of mentally retard
• Rogers Hamilton v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  606 F.2d 576· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-14 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the appellant's claims were time-barred and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination for the 1974 hiring, thus affirming the district court's decision.
• Chavez v. State
  132 So. 3d 826· Fla.· 2014-01-31 ·cited 28×
  Juan Carlos Chavez, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his second successive motion for post-conviction relief filed shortly before his scheduled execution. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of all claims, including challenges to lethal injection procedures, c
• Davidson v. Bd. OF Governors OF State Colleges & Univs. FOR W. Ill. Univ.
  920 F.2d 441· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the district court should not have dismissed the suit solely on timeliness without considering equitable tolling, the complaint fails to state a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because it does not allege that the university discrimin
• Jensen v. Frank
  912 F.2d 517· 1st Cir.· 1990-08-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to timely contact an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor within the required 30-day period after his termination, and his arguments for equitable tolling or a continuing violation were unavailing.
• Stamatina Stallcop v. Kaiser Found. Hosps.
  820 F.2d 1044· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 28×
  State law claims arising from a collective bargaining agreement are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA and are subject to a six-month statute of limitations, and equitable modification is not warranted without evidence of excusable ignorance or deceptive conduct.
• Hardin v. City Title & Escrow Co.
  797 F.2d 1037· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the one-year limitation period in 12 U.S.C. § 2614 is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit and is not subject to equitable tolling.
• Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co.
  785 F.2d 516· 4th Cir.· 1986-03-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the majority erred by introducing a new factual theory of intimidation not raised by the parties, which contradicted the record and undermined the ADEA's limitations period.
• Janowiak v. The Corporate City OF S. Bend
  750 F.2d 557· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a statistical disparity between minority population and department representation alone is insufficient to justify an affirmative action program under Title VII or the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Gieringer v. A.A. Silverman
  731 F.2d 1272· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that summary judgment was appropriate to resolve the statute of limitations defense, as the plaintiffs' deposition testimony indicated they had sufficient notice of potential fraud upon receiving the offer letter, and their claims for equitable tolling and estoppel
• Glenann Wilkerson v. Siegfried Ins. Agency, Inc.
  683 F.2d 344· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the employer's actions did not constitute active misleading or misrepresentation sufficient to equitably toll the statutory filing deadlines for age and sex discrimination claims.
• Sch. Dist. OF the City OF Allentown v. Marshall
  657 F.2d 16· 3d Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the time limitation for filing a complaint under the Toxic Substances Control Act is not jurisdictional, the Secretary of Labor erred in tolling the period without adequate basis, requiring the dismissal of the complaint.
• Biggans v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc.
  638 F.2d 605· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-31 ·cited 28×
  The statute of limitations applicable to common law fraud actions, rather than the Pennsylvania Securities Act, governs suits claiming damages for churning under federal securities laws.
• Hinton v. CPC Int'l, Inc.
  520 F.2d 1312· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the 90-day period for filing a Title VII action after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite, and failure to comply deprives the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Clark v. Resistoflex Co.
  854 F.2d 762· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a fact issue exists regarding when the ADEA claim accrued and whether equitable estoppel applies to the limitations defense, but affirmed the dismissal of the ERISA claim as factually insufficient.
• Hill v. Texaco, Inc.
  825 F.2d 333· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 27×
  Equitable tolling principles should generally apply to 15 U.S.C.A. § 2805(a) because Congress did not specifically exempt it.
• Gonzales v. Sec'y OF the AIR Force & the Dep't of the Air Force
  824 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 27×
  The court held that an amended complaint adding the proper party defendant does not relate back to the original filing date if the proper party did not receive notice of the action within the statutory limitations period.
• A.W. Hemmings v. Barian
  822 F.2d 688· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-12 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the six-year statute of limitations for Wisconsin's RICO statute applies to federal RICO claims, and that the district court prematurely dismissed the fraud claim for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Borzeka v. Heckler
  739 F.2d 444· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-02 ·cited 27×
  Failure to comply with the technical requirements of Rule 4(d)(5) for service on the United States does not automatically require dismissal if actual notice was received, there was no prejudice, there was a justifiable excuse for the defect, and dismissal would severely prejudice
• Meyer v. Riegel Prods. Corp. & James River Corp. of Va.
  720 F.2d 303· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-02 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a plaintiff's suspicion of discrimination or consultation with an attorney does not, as a matter of law, preclude equitable tolling of the ADEA's statute of limitations when the employer's misrepresentations may have caused the delay in filing.
• Coke v. Gen. Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
  616 F.2d 785· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-07 ·cited 27×
  The court held that timely notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an ADEA claim, and equitable considerations are irrelevant.
• Glenann Wilkerson v. Siegfried Ins. Agency, Inc.
  621 F.2d 1042· 10th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the issue of equitable tolling for statutory notice periods in discrimination claims cannot be resolved by summary judgment based solely on affidavits, requiring an evidentiary hearing. However, summary judgment for parent companies was proper as no agency rel
• Rylewicz v. Beaton Servs., Ltd.
  888 F.2d 1175· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Cummingses lacked standing to bring RICO and civil rights claims as the alleged injuries were to the corporation, not directly to them. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Fair Credit Reporting Act claim against certain defendants due to the statu