Equitable Tolling

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

• Lopez v. Alcala
  547 F. Supp. 2d 1255· M.D. Fla.· 2008-02-29 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the children were wrongfully removed from Mexico under the Hague Convention and must be returned, as the exceptions to return were not met.
• Nicks v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l
  957 So. 2d 65· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-05-04 ·cited 13×
  Carl Thomas Nicks appeals the revocation of his contractor's license by the Construction Industry Licensing Board after the Board found he waived his right to dispute factual allegations in an administrative complaint by failing to timely return an election of rights form. The Fi
• Vantage Healthcare Corp. v. Agency FOR Health Care Admin. & Manatee Springs Nursing Ctr., Inc.
  687 So. 2d 306· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-01-27 ·cited 13×
  The agency erred in departing from its own rule by accepting a late-filed letter of intent under the doctrine of equitable tolling.
• Luna v. United States Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  948 F.2d 169· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-25 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff's application for attorney's fees under the EAJA was timely due to equitable tolling, despite being filed more than thirty days after the district court's remand order, which was deemed the final judgment.
• Loeber v. BAY Tankers, Inc.
  924 F.2d 1340· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the United States due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Admiralty Extension Act's jurisdictional prerequisite of filing a claim and waiting six months before filing suit. However, the court
• Davenport v. A.C. Davenport & SON Co.
  903 F.2d 1139· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff should have been given an opportunity to prove tolling of the statute of limitations, as dismissal at the pleading stage was premature.
• Smith v. Gen. Scanning, Inc.
  832 F.2d 96· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 13×
  Failure to commence proceedings under state law in a deferral state before filing an ADEA claim in federal court mandates dismissal, as this is a condition precedent to suit.
• Robinson v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  777 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1985-11-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the six-month limitations period of section 10(b) of the NLRA should be borrowed and applied to claims brought under section 2, Fourth of the RLA, due to federal labor policy favoring uniformity and speed.
• Burnam v. Amoco Container Co.
  755 F.2d 893· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 13×
  A refusal to rehire, absent a new discriminatory act, does not revive an otherwise time-barred claim of discriminatory termination under the ADEA.
• Dotson v. United States
  30 F.4th 1259· 11th Cir.· 2022-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the USPS complied with 39 C.F.R. § 912.9(a) by sending the denial letter to the most recently identified legal representative for the administrative claims, rendering the plaintiffs' FTCA claims untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).
• Philip Morris USA Inc. v. McCall
  234 So. 3d 4· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-12-13 ·cited 12×
  Philip Morris appeals a judgment in favor of Bernice McCall on survival and loss of consortium claims related to her husband's death from lung cancer allegedly caused by smoking PM-manufactured cigarettes. The court reversed the loss of consortium award as time-barred under the s
• Medalie v. FSC Sec. Corp.
  87 F. Supp. 2d 1295· S.D. Fla.· 2000-02-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the securities fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and the breach of fiduciary duty claim is barred by the economic loss rule.
• Heckman v. City OF Oakland Park
  644 So. 2d 525· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-09-14 ·cited 12×
  The Heckmans appealed a summary judgment dismissing their cross-claims against the City of Oakland Park based on the statute of limitations. The court affirmed dismissal of two counts based on a February 17, 1988 accrual date, but reversed and remanded a third count involving an
• Jasper C. Rowe v. Sullivan
  967 F.2d 186· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-05 ·cited 12×
  Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination claims, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 does not apply retroactively. A request for administrative reconsideration must be timely filed.
• Anixter v. Home-Stake Prod. Co.
  939 F.2d 1420· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the three-year period in Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933 is an absolute statute of repose, barring claims even if equitable tolling or estoppel are invoked. Therefore, claims filed more than three years after the security was offered are dismissed.
• Webb v. Ind. Nat'l Bank
  931 F.2d 434· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury and that the injury is actionable, not merely when they suspect discrimination or when the consequences of a past discriminatory act continue.
• I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund v. Slyman Indus., Inc.
  901 F.2d 127· D.C. Cir.· 1990-04-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the MPPAA time limits for contesting withdrawal liability were not equitably tolled by the employer's bankruptcy, and that liquidated damages under ERISA do not extend to post-judgment interest.
• Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro
  900 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred due to a lack of equitable tolling.
• Ramirez v. Garcia
  898 F.2d 224· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that negligent conduct is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but conduct reflecting reckless or callous indifference may be. The evidence against one defendant was insufficient for a § 1983 claim, while the other's joinder after the statute of limitations requi
• Harris v. Alumax Mill Prods., Inc.
  897 F.2d 400· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-26 ·cited 12×
  State law claims are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA and are time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations applicable to such claims.
• Lubniewski v. Lehman
  891 F.2d 216· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the thirty-day filing period under Title VII is jurisdictional and requires naming the proper defendant, but this period does not apply to federal employee ADEA claims, which are subject to a six-year statute of limitations.
• RYS v. U.S. Postal Serv.
  886 F.2d 443· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to name the proper defendant (the Postmaster General) within the 30-day statutory period, despite the EEOC's instructions, did not warrant equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.
• First United Methodist Church OF Hyattsville v. United States Gypsum Co.
  882 F.2d 862· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Maryland's statute of repose protects manufacturers and is not preempted by CERCLA for asbestos removal claims from building structures.
• del Percio v. Thornsley
  877 F.2d 785· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's damage claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations and her claim for injunctive relief was not ripe for adjudication.
• Farrell v. Auto. Club OF Mich.
  870 F.2d 1129· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Michigan state court did not clearly lack jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' ERISA claim, thus tolling the statute of limitations during the pendency of the state action. The court also affirmed the district court's refusal to assert pendent jurisdiction ov
• Honeycutt v. Long
  861 F.2d 1346· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Secretary of Defense did not receive notice within the 30-day limitations period, thus the amendment to substitute the Secretary as defendant could not relate back under Rule 15(c).
• Salgado v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  823 F.2d 1322· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the one-year time limit for filing a civil action under FEHA is a statute of limitations subject to equitable tolling, and that common law claims are not necessarily preempted by FEHA if they allege actions separate from age discrimination.
• Brock v. Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
  815 F.2d 466· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that material questions of fact remain regarding whether the doctrine of equitable tolling excused the Secretary's delay in filing suit, requiring reversal of summary judgment.
• Nolting v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc.
  799 F.2d 1192· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding willfulness and business necessity were proper, and that the plaintiff was bound by her attorney's actions in filing the suit late, thus affirming the district court's judgment.
• Stone v. Heckler
  778 F.2d 645· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Appeals Council's decision not to extend the time for filing a civil action under the Social Security Act is not subject to judicial review.
• Seredinski v. Clifton Precision Prods. Co.
  776 F.2d 56· 3d Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's retaliation claim under Title VII should not have been dismissed as untimely due to the EEOC's failure to follow its own regulations regarding deferral to state agencies, and that equitable tolling was warranted.
• Freedman v. AIR Line Stewards & Stewardesses Assoc.
  730 F.2d 509· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to modification of the consent decree for additional seniority or to change their minds about reinstatement, as the circumstances were not unforeseeable or extraordinary enough to warrant modification.
• Sibyl Harrison v. United States
  708 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for the Federal Tort Claims Act claim did not begin to accrue until the plaintiff obtained her medical records, as she lacked the requisite knowledge of her injury's cause prior to that time.
• Bartelt v. Berlitz Sch. OF Languages OF Am., Inc.
  698 F.2d 1003· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the sex discrimination claims were untimely because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges were not filed within the 300-day limit, and the paychecks did not constitute a continuing violation.
• Brown v. Mead Corp.
  646 F.2d 1163· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-13 ·cited 12×
  A plaintiff who receives a facially valid right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, even if later deemed issued in error, is bound by the ninety-day filing period from that first notice, and equitable tolling does not apply absent specific circumstances not present here.
• Watson v. Gulf & W. Indus.
  650 F.2d 990· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the EEOC's administrative failures do not bar a plaintiff's claim, and a parent corporation is generally not liable for a subsidiary's Title VII violations.
• Metcalf v. Johnson
  113 So. 2d 864· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-07-31 ·cited 12×
  A plaintiff as administrator de bonis non of his father's estate sued to recover $31,700 in cash and jewelry allegedly converted by his half-sister Claudia Johnson Bolen while she served as administratrix of the estate. The court affirmed a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor, hold
• Turner v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  991 F.3d 1208· 11th Cir.· 2021-03-25 ·cited 11×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that the district court did not err in sua sponte determining the petition was untimely based on the petitioner's own admissions and provided dates, and that the petitioner had an opportu
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Nationwide Equities Corp.
  304 So. 3d 1240· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-02-26 ·cited 11×
  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as receiver for a failed bank, appealed a dismissal of its breach of contract action, which was based on the statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the FDIC failed to preserve its statute
• Howell v. State
  109 So. 3d 763· Fla.· 2013-02-19 ·cited 11×
  Paul Augustus Howell, convicted and sentenced to death for constructing a bomb intended to kill a witness that instead killed a Florida Highway Patrol Trooper, appeals the denial of his successive postconviction motion filed just before his scheduled execution. The Florida Suprem
• Hromyak v. Tyco Int'l Ltd.
  942 So. 2d 1022· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-12-06 ·cited 11×
  A stockholder sued Tyco International and related defendants in 2002 on federal securities law claims after a 1999 federal class action was dismissed. The court affirmed dismissal on statute of limitations grounds, holding that class action tolling under American Pipe does not ap
• Fla. Hosp. Waterman v. Stoll
  855 So. 2d 271· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-10-03 ·cited 11×
  Florida Hospital Waterman sought certiorari review to overturn a trial court's order denying its motion to dismiss a medical malpractice claim based on alleged failure to comply with pre-suit verification requirements. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the Hospital wai
• Perdue v. TJ Palm Assocs.
  755 So. 2d 660· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-06-16 ·cited 11×
  Norma Perdue appealed the South Florida Water Management District's dismissal of her amended petition challenging two Environmental Resource Permits issued to T.J. Palm Associates. The District properly dismissed her challenge as untimely and lacking merit because Perdue failed t
• Edward D. Jones & Co. & Gary Aleff v. Sorrells
  957 F.2d 509· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 11×
  The court held that Section 15 of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure renders claims ineligible for arbitration if filed more than six years after the event giving rise to the dispute, and this eligibility requirement is for the court to decide, not the arbitrators.
• Bayer v. United States Dep't OF the Treas.
  956 F.2d 330· D.C. Cir.· 1992-02-21 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a plaintiff's averment of unawareness of the thirty-day time limit for contacting an EEO counselor raises a genuine issue of material fact, precluding summary judgment.
• Christopher v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  950 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the appellants' Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims were time-barred because the statute of limitations began to run when the discriminatory nature of the plan amendment was apparent, not when the concealment of a waiver provision was discovered
• Ruel E. Brown v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor
  864 F.2d 120· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 11×
  The sixty-day filing period under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) is a jurisdictional limit, and equitable tolling does not apply to extend it.
• Josiah-Faeduwor v. Commc'ns Satellite Corp.
  785 F.2d 344· D.C. Cir.· 1986-03-11 ·cited 11×
  The court held that for private sector Title VII actions, notice of a right-to-sue letter can be imputed to a plaintiff from their counsel's receipt, and equitable tolling is not warranted when the plaintiff failed to notify the EEOC of an address change.
• Jones v. The Transohio Sav. Ass'n
  747 F.2d 1037· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 11×
  The statute of limitations for actions under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is subject to equitable tolling, and the limitations period for fraudulent concealment begins when the borrower discovers or could have discovered the fraud.
• Flatirons Bank v. The Alan W. Steinberg Ltd. P'ship
  233 So. 3d 1207· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-12-06 ·cited 10×
  Flatirons Bank appealed a trial court judgment in favor of the Alan W. Steinberg Limited Partnership, seeking recovery of $1,000,000 in stolen funds that passed through Steinberg's account. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Flatirons failed to prove unjust enrichment aga