Equitable Tolling

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

• Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. Govin T. Rajan
  93 So. 3d 1124· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-07-27 ·cited 10×
  Zirkelbach Construction sought certiorari to quash a discovery order compelling production of documents from its liability insurer's claims file. The court granted the petition, holding that the claims file materials were protected work product and that Rajan failed to establish
• Latin Express Serv., Inc. v. State
  660 So. 2d 1059· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-05-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the agency's order was defective for failing to inform the appellant of its right to seek direct judicial review in the district court of appeal and the associated time limits.
• Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l Inc.
  991 F.2d 583· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that individual employees can be held liable under the ADEA if they participated in discriminatory termination decisions.
• Morse v. Univ. OF Vt.
  973 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are governed by the state's personal injury statute of limitations, and that the district court abused its discretion by exercising jurisdiction over the pendent state law claim after dismissing the federal claim.
• Pipkin v. United States Postal Serv.
  951 F.2d 272· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that procedural defects barred the FTCA claims and that grievance procedures precluded the Bivens claims.
• Wilson v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.
  939 F.2d 260· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, holding that sexual harassment claims can be cognizable under the Jones Act if they involve tortious conduct beyond Title VII violations, and that the statute of limitations was properly applied, barring claims outside the limita
• Connors v. Hallmark & SON Coal Co.
  935 F.2d 336· D.C. Cir.· 1991-06-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims for delinquent ERISA contributions accrue when the trustees discover, or with due diligence should have discovered, the employer's underreporting and nonpayment, not at the time of the breach.
• Rhodes v. Guiberson OIL Tools Division
  927 F.2d 876· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's misrepresentations on the severance report equitably estopped them from asserting the statutory filing period for the plaintiff's age discrimination claim.
• Robertson v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  925 F.2d 1124· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a motion to reopen a case after remand is not a new petition for judicial review and that the claimant's appeal was properly before the court. The court further held that the Administrative Law Judge's (AU) finding of not disabled was supported by substantial
• Tilford Youngblood v. Dalzell
  925 F.2d 954· 6th Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in closing the case without addressing pending motions to enforce and modify the consent decree, and without adequately considering the decree's specific terms for termination of jurisdiction.
• Stark v. Dynascan Corp.
  902 F.2d 549· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's age discrimination claim was time-barred because he had sufficient knowledge of potential discrimination on the date of his termination, making equitable tolling inappropriate.
• McGINTY v. United States Dep't OF the Army & its Sec'y
  900 F.2d 1114· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-25 ·cited 10×
  A federal employee claiming age discrimination must exhaust administrative remedies once initiated, and failure to comply with administrative time limits, whether jurisdictional or like statutes of limitations, bars suit.
• J.D. Hamilton v. 1ST Source Bank
  895 F.2d 159· 4th Cir.· 1990-02-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the pay discrimination claim was not time-barred due to the discovery rule, but damages were limited to two years prior to the original complaint, and prejudgment interest was not recoverable on the discriminatory discharge claim where liquidated damages were
• Spiegler v. Dist. OF Columbia
  866 F.2d 461· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while a 30-day limitations period is appropriate for Education of the Handicapped Act claims, the District's failure to provide adequate notice of this period to the appellants bars its application in this case.
• Bates v. Tenn. Valley Auth. & Orvis Engelstad
  851 F.2d 1366· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an amendment to add parties after the limitations period expired could not relate back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) because the new parties did not receive notice within the limitations period.
• Husch v. Szabo Food Serv. Co.
  851 F.2d 999· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the time limitations for satisfying ADEA preconditions should be equitably tolled because the plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to file her complaint in a proper state agency.
• Hernandez v. Hill Country Tel. Coop., Inc.
  849 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII complaint was timely filed, that the defendant waived the 180-day EEOC charge limitation by not raising it below, and that claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 can be pursued concurrently.
• Wilson v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  838 F.2d 286· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's initial termination claim was time-barred, but his failure-to-rehire claim under the ADEA should not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and is remanded. The state law contract and fraud claims were properly dismissed.
• Harris v. Brock
  835 F.2d 1190· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the thirty-day time limit for filing a Title VII action against a federal employer is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling, even if the plaintiff initially filed a timely but improperly served complaint.
• Wislocki-Goin v. Mears
  831 F.2d 1374· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or disparate impact under Title VII, and her claim regarding the jail job was time-barred due to failure to file an EEOC charge within the statutory period.
• Childs v. Pa. Fed'n Bhd. OF Maint. WAY Emps.
  831 F.2d 429· 3d Cir.· 1987-10-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a duty of fair representation claim accrues when the National Railroad Adjustment Board rejects the employee's claim, not when the union's breach occurs, if the union continues to represent the employee. It also held that federal courts have subject matter jur
• Wilson v. Grumman Ohio Corp.
  815 F.2d 26· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 10×
  The filing of a complaint that is later dismissed without prejudice does not toll the statutory filing period for a Title VII action, and equitable tolling is not warranted in this case.
• Morales v. Isidoro Rosa Viera
  815 F.2d 2· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient diligence to justify equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, even if fraudulent concealment was present.
• Conley v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers
  810 F.2d 913· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations for unfair labor practice charges applies to this hybrid section 301 claim, and equitable tolling does not apply when an NLRB charge is filed.
• MacHules v. Dep't OF Admin.
  502 So. 2d 437· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-11-25 ·cited 10×
  Machules appealed the Department of Administration's dismissal of his late petition challenging his termination for abandonment of position. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Machules failed to timely file within the 20-day deadline and that due process, estoppel, an
• Gen. Builders Supply Co. v. River Hill Coal Venture
  796 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the investors' claims under federal securities laws were time-barred because they failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the alleged fraud within the applicable limitations period.
• Dempsey v. Pac. Bell Co.
  789 F.2d 1451· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 10×
  The sixty-day waiting period after filing age discrimination charges with the EEOC is jurisdictional, but the statutes of limitation may be equitably tolled.
• Hill v. Ga. Power Co.
  786 F.2d 1071· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Wadley's hybrid § 301 claim was not time-barred due to potential equitable tolling, but Hill's claim was time-barred. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the false imprisonment claim against Georgia Power.
• CPI Crude v. Coffman
  776 F.2d 1546· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the two-year Texas statute of limitations to the federal overcharge claims, finding that the cause of action accrued at the time of the first overcharge and that the plaintiff failed to establish fraudulent concealment.
• Freschi v. Grand Coal Venture
  767 F.2d 1041· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that defendants were liable for securities fraud under Rule 10b-5 and common law fraud, but damages must be reduced by tax benefits received, limiting recovery to actual net economic loss.
• Brown v. J.I. Case Co.
  756 F.2d 48· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 10×
  The filing of a request for appointed counsel, along with a Notice of Right-to-Sue, tolls the ninety-day statutory filing period until the court rules on the request, provided the request is made in good faith and without inequitable conduct.
• Townsend v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor
  743 F.2d 880· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the claimant's failure to file a timely appeal was not justified by excusable neglect, even if equitable tolling were available, because the regulations do not require notice of appeal rights and the claimant was represented by counsel.
• Cruce v. Brazosport Indep. Sch. Dist.
  703 F.2d 862· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to file a timely charge with the EEOC is a bar to her suit and prevents her from amending her complaint to add new claims.
• Thomas v. Katv Channel 7
  692 F.2d 548· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-12 ·cited 10×
  Notice of a right-to-sue letter to an attorney's employee does not trigger the ninety-day filing period if the client did not direct the letter be sent to the attorney or the attorney did not personally acknowledge receipt.
• Morgan v. Wash. Mfg. Co.
  660 F.2d 710· 6th Cir.· 1981-10-07 ·cited 10×
  The statutory period for filing a sex discrimination complaint with the EEOC is tolled when a complaint is timely filed with another federal agency that subsequently forwards it to the EEOC, provided there is no prejudice, bad faith, or lack of diligence by the claimant.
• Villasenor v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. & Aeronautical Indus. Dist. Lodge 727
  640 F.2d 207· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII action was properly dismissed because he failed to present sufficient evidence to equitably toll the administrative charge filing deadline.
• Britt v. Cyril S. Arvanitis
  590 F.2d 57· 3d Cir.· 1978-11-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the amended complaint did not relate back to the original filing date because the defendant had no notice of the suit within the limitations period, and thus the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Wright v. Waste Pro USA Inc
  69 F.4th 1332· 11th Cir.· 2023-06-13 ·cited 9×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the prior dismissal of the plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act claims in South Carolina without prejudice did not toll the statute of limitations for his subsequent action filed in Florida. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled t
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sheffield
  266 So. 3d 1230· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-02-08 ·cited 9×
  The 1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, applies to the punitive damages issues in this wrongful death action because the cause of action accrued on the date of the decedent's death in 2007, not on the date the decedent manifested a smoking-related disease in 1994. M
• PRO Tech Monitoring, Inc. v. State
  72 So. 3d 277· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-10-17 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Department of Corrections erroneously dismissed Pro Tech Monitoring's bid protest petition as untimely, and that the petition should either be considered timely filed or equitably tolled.
• Nealon v. Michael P.W. Stone
  958 F.2d 584· 4th Cir.· 1992-03-02 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII discrimination claim was barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but her Title VII retaliation claim was not. The court also held that her Equal Pay Act claim was not time-barred due to a continuing violation and equitab
• René Ynclan Ynclan v. Dep't OF the AIR Force
  943 F.2d 1388· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the thirty-day period for filing a Title VII suit against a government employer is subject to equitable tolling, and a clerical delay in filing due to pending motions should not prejudice the plaintiff.
• Schmidt v. United States
  933 F.2d 639· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-15 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for claims against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act is subject to equitable tolling and is not a jurisdictional prerequisite.
• Dort Attwood v. Mendocino Coast Dist. Hosp.
  886 F.2d 241· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-22 ·cited 9×
  When a district court declines to exercise jurisdiction under the Colorado River doctrine due to parallel state litigation, it must stay the federal action rather than dismiss it, to ensure the federal forum remains available if the state proceedings prove inadequate.
• Shoup v. Bell & Howell Co.
  872 F.2d 1178· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 9×
  A federal court's dismissal of a claim on statute of limitations grounds operates as a judgment on the merits, subject to claim preclusion in a subsequent federal action between the same parties.
• Arnold v. United States
  816 F.2d 1306· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the USPS's reinstatement of Arnold did not moot her Title VII claims for the period prior to reinstatement, and that Postmaster Carpenter was not entitled to absolute immunity for state-law tort claims arising from actions outside the scope of his duty.
• Ringgold v. Nat'l Maint. Corp.
  796 F.2d 769· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-11 ·cited 9×
  The 90-day period for filing a Title VII suit begins to run upon delivery of the right-to-sue letter to the claimant's designated counsel or the claimant, and the suit was untimely.
• King v. State OF Cal.
  784 F.2d 910· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-07 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for TILA damages claims runs from the date of consummation, but equitable tolling may suspend the period if the borrower could not reasonably discover the fraud or nondisclosures. State claims are remanded as pendent to surviving fed
• LEE v. The U.S. Postal Serv.
  774 F.2d 1067· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-25 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was untimely filed and that the district court committed no error in dismissing the action on that ground.
• Trecker v. Dane T. Scag
  679 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the statute of limitations, materiality, and scienter issues, vacating the judgment and remanding for further proceedings.