Equitable Tolling

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

• Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst
  503 F.2d 1100· 7th Cir.· 1974-08-30 ·cited 21×
  Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the adequacy of the accountants' audits and their compliance with professional standards, precluding summary judgment.
• In re Jackson
  826 F.3d 1343· 11th Cir.· 2016-06-24 ·cited 20×
  The Eleventh Circuit granted Steven Jackson's application for permission to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court found that Jackson made a prima facie showing that his motion contains a claim based on Johnson v. United States, which declared the ACCA's r
• Aleong v. State
  963 So. 2d 799· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-07-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an attorney's mistake in calendaring does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance for equitable tolling, and excusable neglect is unavailable in Chapter 120 proceedings. However, the Board erred by imposing a sanction greater than the guidelines without w
• Aungst v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  937 F.2d 1216· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-22 ·cited 20×
  The court should have let the jury verdict stand, as the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party could support their conclusion.
• Vintilla v. United States
  931 F.2d 1444· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that equitable tolling cannot override statutory requirements for filing tax refund claims, and a prior denial of a motion to dismiss does not preclude reconsideration of jurisdiction at the summary judgment stage.
• Beshears v. Asbill
  930 F.2d 1348· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while a jury instruction misallocated the burden of proof regarding equitable tolling, the error was harmless, and affirmed the dismissal of claims for Beshears and Johnson and the jury verdict for Asbill.
• Trustees of the Chicago Truck Drivers v. Cent. Transp., Inc.
  888 F.2d 1161· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-31 ·cited 20×
  Notice of withdrawal liability to one member of a controlled group is sufficient notice to all members, but the Fund's filing of a claim in bankruptcy court equitably tolled the time for defendants to initiate arbitration.
• Eichman v. Fotomat Corp.
  871 F.2d 784· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that prior judgments barred claims under res judicata and that the statute of limitations barred other claims, affirming the district court's summary judgment.
• Cmty. Elec. Serv. OF LOS Angeles, Inc. v. Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-06 ·cited 20×
  The court should affirm the denial of sanctions because the motion was not timely filed, despite the majority's interpretation of precedent.
• Armbrister v. Roland Int'l Corp.
  667 F. Supp. 802· M.D. Fla.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 20×
  Summary judgment is granted for the defendants on Counts I, II, and III because the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
• Henderson v. United States Veterans Admin.
  790 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Veterans Administration waived the timeliness defense by making a specific finding that the plaintiff's complaint was timely after it was remanded for that determination.
• Nikolas Zografov, M.D. v. V.A. Med. Ctr.
  779 F.2d 967· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the 30-day time limit for filing an EEO complaint is not a jurisdictional bar, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to equitable relief from this deadline due to a lack of affirmative misconduct by the government.
• Burns v. United States
  764 F.2d 722· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff's letter to a Senator did not constitute a sufficient administrative claim under the FTCA because it lacked a sum certain for damages, and thus the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• ST. Louis v. Alverno Coll.
  744 F.2d 1314· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-02 ·cited 20×
  The ninety-day period to file a Title VII action begins to run from the date the right-to-sue notice is delivered to the claimant's last known address, not from the date of actual receipt if the delay is due to the claimant's own negligence in failing to update their address with
• Nelson v. United States Steel Corp.
  709 F.2d 675· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 20×
  The trial court properly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction after the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
• Walck v. Am. Stock Exch., Inc.
  687 F.2d 778· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that federal securities laws do not create an implied private right of action for damages against stock exchanges for failure to enforce their own rules or federal margin requirements.
• Partlow v. Jewish Orphans' Home OF S. Cal., Inc.
  645 F.2d 757· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that due process requires the district court to notify potential plaintiffs who filed ineffective consents and to toll the statute of limitations to allow them to refile.
• Orahood v. The Bd. OF Trs. OF the Univ. OF Ark. & Robert Ross
  645 F.2d 651· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-10 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish substantially equal work for her Equal Pay Act claim and that her Title VII claims were either rebutted by the employer or barred by the statute of limitations for filing with the EEO
• Eric Michael Patz, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health
  864 So. 2d 79· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-12-24 ·cited 19×
  Dr. Eric Patz appeals a default judgment entered by the Florida Board of Medicine after he failed to timely file an Election of Rights form requesting a formal hearing within the required 21-day period. The court affirms, holding that administrative procedure rules requiring time
• Knight v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.
  750 F. Supp. 1109· M.D. Fla.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 19×
  The court held that claims based on exchange rules are dismissed, but other claims, including securities fraud, common law fraud, and RICO, survive the motion to dismiss.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. O'Grady
  857 F.2d 383· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-12 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the Sheriff's violations of the ADEA were willful, reversing the award of liquidated damages and remanding for reconsideration. The court affirmed the district court's decisions regarding the non-offset of pension benefits a
• C.M. English v. Pabst Brewing Co.
  828 F.2d 1047· 4th Cir.· 1987-09-15 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the plaintiff's age discrimination claim was time-barred due to failure to file within the statutory period and that he failed to establish that his termination was based on age.
• The United States v. Cook
  795 F.2d 987· Fed. Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court had the power to order the disclosure of names and addresses of potential FLSA plaintiffs and that doing so was not an abuse of discretion, but the order tolling the statute of limitations was premature.
• Nelson v. Int'l Paint Co.
  716 F.2d 640· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-20 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied California's statute of limitations, barring the claim, and that equitable exceptions did not apply.
• Donovan v. Crisostomo
  689 F.2d 869· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for FLSA claims commenced when individual employees were named as claimants in the pre-trial order, not when the complaint was filed. It also held that the Secretary of Labor has authority to seek restitution for wage kickbacks that
• Clemons v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.
  967 F.3d 1231· 11th Cir.· 2020-07-30 ·cited 18×
  Eugene Clemons, convicted of capital murder of a federal DEA agent, sought federal habeas relief on thirty-two claims after the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that executing intellectually disabled persons violates the Eighth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed
• United States v. Montano
  398 F.3d 1276· 11th Cir.· 2005-02-04 ·cited 18×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that bartering drugs for guns does not constitute "use" of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), as the statute requires active employment of the firearm, which is absent when a defendant merely receives a firearm in exchange for drugs. The court further h
• McINTYRE v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  779 So. 2d 639· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-03-09 ·cited 18×
  Lawrence McIntyre, Sr., a school transportation manager, was suspended and terminated by the Seminole County School Board after testing positive for drugs. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the termination and remanded for an administrative hearing, finding the School B
• Martin v. Consultants & Administrators
  966 F.2d 1078· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-18 ·cited 18×
• Hiram Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp., Inc.
  936 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext in his age discrimination claim, even though he established a prima facie case.
• Pub. Interest Research Grp. OF NEW Jersey, Inc. v. Powell Duffryn Terminals Inc.
  913 F.2d 64· 3d Cir.· 1990-08-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were not sufficiently traceable to the defendant's specific discharge to establish constitutional standing, despite the defendant's egregious pollution record.
• Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co. & Hartmarx Specialty Stores, Inc.
  887 F.2d 124· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the individual Title VII claim against Baskin, but properly dismissed claims against HSSI and class-wide allegations due to insufficient EEOC notice and conciliation opportunity.
• Williams v. United States Postal Serv. & John K. Wuertz
  873 F.2d 1069· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an amendment to a complaint adding a party defendant does not relate back to the original filing date if the new party did not receive notice of the action within the applicable statute of limitations period, and that the 30-day filing requirement for employme
• Miller v. Cudahy Co.
  858 F.2d 1449· 10th Cir.· 1988-09-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the salt pollution constituted a continuing nuisance causing temporary damages, thus the statute of limitations did not bar claims for damages within two years of filing. The court also affirmed the actual damages calculation and the punitive damages award, re
• Crowley Mar. Corp. v. Panama Canal Comm'n
  849 F.2d 951· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a premature notice of appeal filed before Rule 54(b) certification can confer jurisdiction if the judgment becomes final before appeal disposition, and that the statute of limitations for claims against the Panama Canal Commission cannot be equitably tolled.
• Gilardi v. Schroeder
  833 F.2d 1226· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a plaintiff's failure to file a timely charge with the state agency in a deferral state bars the plaintiff from invoking the extended 300-day filing period with the EEOC under Title VII.
• DeBRUNNER v. Midway Equip. Co.
  803 F.2d 950· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an employer's failure to post a required equal employment opportunity notice does not justify equitable tolling of the ADEA filing period if the employee has general knowledge of their rights under the ADEA.
• Carmel J. McINTYRE v. United States
  789 F.2d 1408· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Quiet Title Act's 12-year statute of limitations is a jurisdictional prerequisite that cannot be equitably tolled or estopped, and that the plaintiff knew or should have known of the government's claim more than 12 years prior to filing suit.
• Pruet Prod. Co. & Pruet Oil Co. v. Ayles
  784 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the directed verdicts, holding that the employee's age discrimination claim was not equitably tolled due to untimely filing and that the employer did not breach the employment agreement.
• Dunn v. The United States
  775 F.2d 99· 3d Cir.· 1985-10-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to timely file an itemized fee application within thirty days of final judgment, thus the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
• Milwaukee Cnty. v. Donovan
  771 F.2d 983· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the 120-day time limit in 29 U.S.C. § 816(b) is not a jurisdictional bar. However, the dissenting judge argued the majority erred in calculating the funding shortfall without considering cost-saving measures.
• Jones v. Truck Drivers Local Union NO. 299
  748 F.2d 1083· 6th Cir.· 1984-11-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that plaintiffs' Title VII and fair representation claims were properly dismissed due to failure to file charges with the EEOC and exceeding the statute of limitations, respectively. The state law claim was remanded for further findings.
• Nichols v. E.T. Hughes
  721 F.2d 657· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for wrongful discharge were barred by the six-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), as the cause of action accrued at the time of discharge and was not tolled by subsequent administrative proceedings or the Board for Correcti
• Vance v. Whirlpool Corp.
  707 F.2d 483· 4th Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 18×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the 60-day conciliation period under 29 U.S.C. § 626(d) is a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing an ADEA suit, and the district court erred in equitably tolling this requirement.
• McKEE v. McDonnell Douglas Tech. Servs. Co., Inc.
  700 F.2d 260· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the Title VII claim because a material issue of fact existed regarding whether the EEOC's refusal to accept the charge tolled the filing period. The court affirmed the judgment for the employer on the Equal
• Earnhardt v. The Commonwealth OF Puerto RICO
  691 F.2d 69· 1st Cir.· 1982-10-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim of equitable tolling based on the employer's failure to post required notices was sufficiently persuasive to avoid summary judgment and warranted an evidentiary hearing.
• Lexine Perdue v. ROY Stone Transfer Corp.
  690 F.2d 1091· 4th Cir.· 1982-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a right-to-sue letter, arguing the EEOC should have been joined as a party.
• Price v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  687 F.2d 74· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the sufficiency of the EEOC charge and the applicability of equitable tolling, precluding summary judgment.
• Stoller v. Marsh
  682 F.2d 971· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper on the plaintiff's 1972 claim because reliance on discriminatory evaluations, even if prepared by supervisors unaware of the animus, violates Title VII unless the employee had a reasonable opportunity to inspect and correct the fi
• Citicorp Person-To-Person Fin. Corp. v. Brazell
  658 F.2d 232· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to properly file a charge with the state agency before filing with the EEOC, and the subsequent expiration of the 300-day filing period, barred her Title VII claim.