Equitable Tolling

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

• Ellis D. Burrell v. Newsome
  883 F.2d 416· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff's appeal was timely filed and that some of his claims were not barred by the statute of limitations due to Texas' prisoner tolling provisions.
• Lulu R. Williams v. Army & AIR Force Exch. Serv.
  830 F.2d 27· 3d Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 26×
  A plaintiff cannot amend a complaint to name the correct defendant after the limitations period has passed if the correct defendant did not receive notice within that period, and equitable tolling is unavailable without active misleading by the defendant.
• Kriegesmann v. Barry-Wehmiller Co.
  739 F.2d 357· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the employer's actions in providing severance benefits and job search assistance did not equitably toll the statute of limitations for filing an EEOC charge.
• Williams v. The United States Fed. Aviation Admin.
  711 F.2d 893· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was properly dismissed because she sued the FAA agency instead of the United States, and the amendment to name the United States could not relate back due to lack of timely notice.
• Wood v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc.
  643 F.2d 339· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the two-year statute of limitations for Texas general fraud applies to federal securities claims, and equitable tolling does not save the claim due to the plaintiffs' delay after opting out of a class action. However, the dismissal of the Texas Blue Sky law cl
• In re Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc.
  123 F.3d 1407· 11th Cir.· 1997-09-26 ·cited 25×
  Bethesda Memorial Hospital petitioned for review of a district court's sua sponte remand order entered 34 days after removal based on defendants' failure to join the removal petition. The Eleventh Circuit held that district courts lack statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c
• Shendock v. Dir., Off. OF Workers' Comp. Programs. Appeal of Stephen Shendock
  893 F.2d 1458· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-12 ·cited 25×
  The sixty-day filing requirement for petitions for review of Benefits Review Board decisions under 33 U.S.C.A. § 921(c) is jurisdictional and cannot be equitably tolled.
• Bornholdt v. Brady
  869 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-16 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the reprisal claim was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but the age discrimination claim was timely because the present suit relates back to an earlier timely filed lawsuit.
• Donoghue v. The Cnty. OF Orange
  848 F.2d 926· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the dismissal of federal and state claims based on statutes of limitation was improper without determining equitable tolling, and that the directed verdict on Title VII claims was inappropriate due to factual inferences and credibility issues for the jury.
• Celestine Ford v. Temple Hosp. & Nat'l Union of Hosp. & Health Care Emps.
  790 F.2d 342· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding bad faith for the initiation of the lawsuit but did not err in finding bad faith for continuing the litigation after the summary judgment motions were filed. Attorneys' fees can be awarded for the latter conduct.
• Jones v. Madison Serv. Corp. & Am. Transit Corp.
  744 F.2d 1309· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-02 ·cited 25×
  The 90-day period for filing a Title VII suit begins to run when the EEOC right-to-sue notice is actually received by the claimant or their attorney, provided certain conditions regarding representation are met.
• Raisa R. Mayes v. Leipziger
  729 F.2d 605· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend, as the plaintiff had a right to amend her complaint as a matter of course or, alternatively, leave to amend should have been freely granted.
• Vance v. Whirlpool Corp.
  716 F.2d 1010· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that if the district court lacked jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case, including equitable tolling.
• Kazanzas v. Walt Disney World Co.
  704 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 25×
  The statute of limitations for an ADEA claim runs from the date of the alleged unlawful practice, not from the filing of the administrative charge, and equitable tolling of the administrative filing period does not automatically toll the statute of limitations.
• Kocian v. Getty Ref. & Mktg. Co. Appeal of Charlotte Kocian
  707 F.2d 748· 3d Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal remedy under Title VII is time-barred because the EEOC failed to defer her charge to the state agency, and the state's shorter limitations period expired.
• Ryan v. Leonor Lobo de Gonzalez and Jorge Gonzalez
  841 So. 2d 510· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-02-26 ·cited 24×
  In this consolidated appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment dismissing claims by the heirs of Maria Luisa Lobo Ryan and the estate of Julio Lobo Olabarria on statute of limitations grounds, but reversed and remanded the denial of attorney's fees to
• Cann v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.
  813 So. 2d 237· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-04-05 ·cited 24×
  Larry and Diana Cann appealed the Department of Children and Family Services' dismissal of their late administrative hearing request to contest denial of their medical foster home relicensure. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Florida law mandates dismissal of untime
• Rivera-Muriente v. Agosto-Alicea
  959 F.2d 349· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was time-barred because he knew or should have known of his termination more than one year before filing suit.
• Jerrald M. Johnson v. United States Postal Serv.
  861 F.2d 1475· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) does not allow relation back of an amended complaint to name a new party defendant if notice was not received within the statutory limitations period.
• Overgard v. Cambridge Book Co.
  858 F.2d 371· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find age discrimination, the evidence did not support a finding that the violation was willful, thus reducing the damages award.
• Blumberg v. HCA Mgmt. Co., Inc.
  848 F.2d 642· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a factual basis for equitable tolling of the 180-day filing period for her age discrimination claim.
• Teamsters Local 282 Pension Tr. Fund v. Angelos
  815 F.2d 452· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because the federal securities claims were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and collateral estoppel prevented tolling the limitations period.
• Silverberg v. Thomson McKINNON Sec., Inc.
  787 F.2d 1079· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Exchange Act and RICO claims were barred by the statute of limitations, applying Ohio's four-year limitations period for fraud as the most analogous state statute of limitations for both federal claims.
• Cerbone v. Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union
  768 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations did not establish facts sufficient to toll the statute of limitations under equitable tolling or equitable estoppel doctrines, as he was aware of his potential age discrimination claim and the employer's representations did not cons
• Shapiro v. Cook United, Inc.
  762 F.2d 49· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff's cause of action accrued when the union failed to pursue arbitration within the collective bargaining agreement's time limit, and the statute of limitations was not tolled by fraudulent concealment.
• Smith v. Oral Roberts Evangelistic Ass'n, Inc.
  731 F.2d 684· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Title VII does not require a plaintiff to file a charge with a state agency within state-imposed time limitations as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the extended federal filing period in deferral states.
• Berlin L. Lawson v. Burlington Indus., Inc.
  683 F.2d 862· 4th Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to file his discrimination charge within the statutory time period and that no equitable justifications for tolling the period existed.
• Valentine R. Ciccone v. Textron, Inc.
  616 F.2d 1216· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that to qualify for the 300-day filing period under the ADEA in a deferral state, a plaintiff must file a charge with the state agency within 180 days of the alleged violation.
• Hanson v. Polk Cnty. Land, Inc.
  608 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that granting summary judgment based on an oral motion without the required ten-day notice under Rule 56(c) constitutes reversible error.
• Morris v. Stifel
  600 F.2d 139· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the two-year statute of limitations under the Missouri blue sky statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 409.411(e), was the appropriate limitations period for federal securities claims, as it bore the closest resemblance in purpose and substance to Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-
• Cottrell v. Newspaper Agency Corp.
  590 F.2d 836· 10th Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to file suit within ninety days of receiving the EEOC's Notice of Right to Sue barred his claim, as neither the EEOC's reliance on state agency findings nor the pendency of state proceedings justified equitable tolling.
• State OF Ohio v. Peterson
  585 F.2d 454· 10th Cir.· 1978-10-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred by treating a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment without providing the plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to present evidence.
• SUN Enters., Ltd. v. Train
  532 F.2d 280· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that challenges to the Administrator's action in issuing an NPDES permit are exclusively reviewable in the court of appeals under § 509(b)(1) of the Water Act, and that such petitions are subject to a 90-day statute of limitations.
• Ford v. State
  402 So. 3d 973· Fla.· 2025-02-07 ·cited 23×
  James D. Ford, sentenced to death for brutal 1997 murders of a couple and sexual assault of the wife, appeals the summary denial of his third successive postconviction motion filed shortly before his scheduled execution. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial, rejecting For
• Roberta Santini, M.D. v. Cleveland Clinic Fla.
  232 F.3d 823· 11th Cir.· 2000-11-06 ·cited 22×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Cleveland Clinic Florida, holding that Santini's Title VII and ADEA claims were time-barred because she failed to file suit within 90 days of receiving the EEOC's dismissal notice, and equitable tolling did not apply where she ha
• Topalian v. Ehrman
  954 F.2d 1125· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to set forth specific facts establishing a genuine issue for trial, and thus affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
• Rice v. NEW England Coll.
  676 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the 90-day filing period for a Title VII action is a non-jurisdictional statute of limitations subject to equitable considerations, but affirmed dismissal because the plaintiff failed to establish such grounds.
• Jennings v. Am. Postal Workers Union
  672 F.2d 712· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the Title VII claim due to a potentially tollable untimely EEOC filing and in dismissing the § 1981 and § 185 claims, which stated valid causes of action against the union.
• Hedrick Smith and Ann B. Smith v. Nixon
  606 F.2d 1183· D.C. Cir.· 1979-07-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the statutory and constitutional claims, and that the statute of limitations was tolled due to government secrecy, reversing the grant of summary judgment.
• Karantsalis v. City of Miami Springs
  17 F.4th 1316· 11th Cir.· 2021-11-12 ·cited 21×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims as time-barred, finding the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the plaintiff's disability progressed to the point where he was actually denied ac
• Fedance v. Clifford "T.I." Joseph Harris, Jr.
  1 F.4th 1278· 11th Cir.· 2021-06-21 ·cited 21×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that while the statute of limitations for Section 12(a)(1) claims does not textually foreclose equitable tolling, the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll the limitations period.
• Barash v. Kates
  585 F. Supp. 2d 1347· S.D. Fla.· 2006-10-12 ·cited 21×
  Philip Barash is sanctioned pursuant to the Court's inherent authority for perpetrating a fraud on the court through false statements during trial, while counsel James M. McCann is not sanctioned.
• Welch v. Cadre Cap.
  923 F.2d 989· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the new federal limitations period for securities fraud claims adopted in Ceres should not be applied retroactively to bar the plaintiffs' claims.
• Pace Indus., Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co.
  813 F.2d 234· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-24 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the initiation of a state court lawsuit to enforce a contract constitutes the last overt act for the purpose of the statute of limitations in an antitrust action, and subsequent appeals do not restart the limitations period.
• R.F. Vernon v. Heckler
  811 F.2d 1274· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-03 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the 60-day time limit for filing a Social Security Act review action is a statute of limitations, not a jurisdictional bar, and that the notice of appeal was timely because the district court's judgment was not entered on a separate document.
• Grier v. Secretary OF the Army
  799 F.2d 721· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 21×
  A federal employee must exhaust administrative remedies by filing a discrimination charge with the agency before suing under Title VII, and agency hiring decisions are reviewed under the APA for arbitrary or capricious action, not de novo.
• Herman v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  744 F.2d 604· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the nonwillful age discrimination claims were barred by the statute of limitations, but the willful claims could proceed to trial due to disputed issues of material fact regarding discriminatory intent.
• Pravin B. Shah v. Halliburton Co.
  627 F.2d 1055· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a Title VII claim is time-barred if not filed within 180 days of the last unlawful employment practice, regardless of when pay ceases. It also held that a Section 1981 claim should be governed by the longer of two potentially applicable state statutes of limit
• Platoro Ltd., Inc. v. The Unidentified Remains OF A Vessel
  614 F.2d 1051· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-04 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for salvage claims should be tolled under the circumstances, and that the complaint stated a valid salvage claim within admiralty jurisdiction.
• George P. Quina (Anne R. Quina v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
  575 F.2d 1115· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the 180-day notice provision of the ADEA is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling based on mere ignorance of one's rights.