Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)

677 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 92 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Kruso v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp.
  872 F.2d 1416· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 422×
  The court held that the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), applies retroactively to disregard Doe defendants for removal purposes, and that the plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants failed to establish fraudul
• Williamson v. Tucker
  645 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-20 ·cited 381×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the joint venture interests and notes could be considered securities.
• Henson v. City OF Dundee
  682 F.2d 897· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 303×
  The court's majority opinion stated that an employer is responsible for a hostile environment created by a supervisor only if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment. The dissenting judge disagrees with this standard, arguing employer liability is automatic when
• Quality Foods de Centro Am., S.A. v. Latin Am. Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A.
  711 F.2d 989· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 255×
  The court held that the third amended complaint stated a sufficient antitrust claim to survive a motion to dismiss, but affirmed the dismissal of Duroparts for lack of standing and remanded for reconsideration of pendent state claims.
• Hobson v. Wilson
  737 F.2d 1· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 237×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the District of Columbia and its employees can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and that certain claims against FBI defendants were barred by the statute of limitations, while others against MPD defendants and the District lacked sufficient evidence.
• Washington v. Strickland
  693 F.2d 1243· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-23 ·cited 191×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the outcome-determinative test for prejudice in a habeas corpus claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. It established a new standard for prejudice, requiring proof that the omitted mitigating evidence would have "subst
• Buchanan v. Bowman
  820 F.2d 359· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 171×
  The court affirmed the district court's imposition of sanctions, striking the appellant's answer and entering a default judgment, and upheld the damages award.
• Durham v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co.
  385 F.2d 366· 5th Cir.· 1967-10-31 ·cited 147×
  The court held that dismissing a complaint with prejudice due to an attorney's negligence, without evidence of bad faith or substantial prejudice to the defendant, exceeds judicial discretion.
• Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada
  432 F.3d 1333· 11th Cir.· 2005-12-16 ·cited 125×
  Betty K Agencies sued Tidal Wave and the M/V MONADA for breach of a vessel charter agreement, seeking return of unearned charter hire and advances. The district court sua sponte dismissed the case with prejudice, citing Betty K's failure to answer a counterclaim and failure to pe
• Indus. Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Interchemical Corp.
  437 F.2d 1336· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-23 ·cited 118×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action under Rule 41(b) and granting summary judgment, as genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the antitrust claims.
• Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Indus.
  728 F.2d 820· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 107×
  The court held that an order declaring entitlement to attorney's fees under ERISA is appealable even if the amount is not yet determined, and that the district court should reconsider the fee award under a 'substantially justified' standard, not a frivolousness standard.
• Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  610 F.2d 241· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-21 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the EEOC's reconsideration of a determination vacated the initial right-to-sue notice, allowing a second notice and tolling the ninety-day filing period. It also held that dismissal of the § 1981 claim for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion withou
• James Burrough Ltd. & Kobrand Corp. v. Sign OF the Beefeater, Inc.
  540 F.2d 266· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-27 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict for the restaurant, as the plaintiff's evidence, including a consumer survey, was sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion regarding trademark infringement.
• Boazman v. Econ. Lab., Inc.
  537 F.2d 210· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-20 ·cited 103×
  The court held that dismissal for want of prosecution, even without prejudice, is reversible error when the statute of limitations may bar refiling and the conduct was not contumacious, and that summary judgment cannot be granted solely for failure to respond without the movant m
• Original Ballet Russe v. Ballet Theatre, Inc.
  133 F.2d 187· 2d Cir.· 1943-02-02 ·cited 90×
  The court held that a complaint alleging multiple tortious acts in furtherance of a conspiracy to destroy a business states a single claim, not separate causes of action requiring separate counts.
• Anderson v. AIR West
  542 F.2d 522· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-22 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence.
• Harris v. Plastics Mfg. Co.
  617 F.2d 438· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-23 ·cited 86×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the claims for lack of evidence of racial discrimination and properly awarded attorney fees to the employer.
• Williamson v. Columbia GAS & Elec. Corp.
  186 F.2d 464· 3d Cir.· 1950-12-28 ·cited 83×
  A prior judgment dismissing a lawsuit based on the statute of limitations, even if based on a stipulation, bars a subsequent suit on the same cause of action under res judicata.
• Quillie B. Woodham v. The Am. Cystoscope Co. OF Pelham
  335 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1964-08-03 ·cited 80×
  The court held that dismissal of a complaint for an attorney's failure to comply with local rules, without notice or hearing, was an improper and overly harsh sanction, especially when the client was not at fault.
• Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist.
  570 F.2d 541· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-31 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute, but vacated the award of attorney's fees for reconsideration.
• Rochez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades
  491 F.2d 402· 3d Cir.· 1973-12-21 ·cited 77×
• Spaulding v. Univ. OF Wash.
  740 F.2d 686· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-03 ·cited 75×
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding plaintiffs failed to prove violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.
• Zweig v. The Hearst Corp.
  594 F.2d 1261· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-09 ·cited 75×
  A financial columnist who buys stock at a discount and then publishes a favorable column without disclosing his interest and intent to profit may violate Rule 10b-5, even if the undisclosed information does not directly relate to the company's intrinsic value.
• Pond v. Braniff Airways
  453 F.2d 347· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-04 ·cited 73×
  The court held that dismissing a case with prejudice due to counsel's inadvertent failure to comply with court orders, without considering lesser sanctions or the plaintiff's lack of fault, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Nulf v. Int'l Paper Co.
  656 F.2d 553· 10th Cir.· 1981-01-05 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for her claims of discriminatory discharge, unequal pay, and denial of promotion, but that the award of attorney's fees to the defendant was improper.
• Goforth v. Roger Douglas Owens, M.D.
  766 F.2d 1533· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the medical malpractice action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
• Moore v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc.
  708 F.2d 475· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-16 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the disparate impact model for supervisory and upper-level craft positions.
• Rutledge v. Elec. Hose & Rubber Co.
  511 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-30 ·cited 69×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
• Hamm v. Members OF the Bd. OF Regents OF the State OF Fla.
  708 F.2d 647· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-01 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed the dismissals of the plaintiff's claims, finding no error in the district court's rulings on procedural grounds, the scope of EEOC charges, or the application of legal standards for retaliation and discrimination.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Busy Elec. Co.
  294 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1961-07-17 ·cited 66×
  The judgment before the court is not a final judgment and therefore not appealable.
• Brown v. Thompson
  430 F.2d 1214· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-06 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice.
• COX v. C. H. Masland & Sons, Inc.
  607 F.2d 138· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-21 ·cited 63×
  Although the employee had a right to a jury trial, the denial was harmless error because the evidence was so decisive that a directed verdict for the defendants would have been required.
• Moore v. ST. Louis Music Supply Co., Inc.
  539 F.2d 1191· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-12 ·cited 62×
  Dismissal with prejudice for attorney's failure to appear is an abuse of discretion when the client is not at fault and the statute of limitations has expired.
• Ouida J. Weissinger v. United States
  423 F.2d 795· 5th Cir.· 1970-03-10 ·cited 60×
  A dismissal with prejudice entered after a full trial on the merits, with complete findings and conclusions, operates as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(b) and cannot be treated as a mere preliminary step for another trial.
• Pearson v. Denny Dennison
  353 F.2d 24· 9th Cir.· 1965-11-10 ·cited 60×
  The court held that dismissal for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion as to defendants Countryman and Dennison, who did not seek dismissal on that ground, but affirmed dismissal as to Marsh, Bayers, Woodvale, and Timbay due to unreasonable delay and prejudice.
• Miranda v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  710 F.2d 516· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-12 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the attorneys received sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process requirements for the imposition of fines for violating local rules.
• Lambert v. Conrad
  536 F.2d 1183· 7th Cir.· 1976-06-24 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the plaintiff's current civil rights action for damages was barred by res judicata due to the dismissal of a prior similar action for injunctive relief.
• Smith Petroleum Serv., Inc. v. Monsanto Chem. Co.
  420 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-07 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the Ryan doctrine of implied indemnity does not apply to non-maritime, land-based accidents, and that Mississippi's Workmen's Compensation Act bars a third-party tortfeasor from seeking indemnity from the employer.
• Kern v. Hettinger
  303 F.2d 333· 2d Cir.· 1962-05-04 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the statute of limitations did not bar the action against Chase Manhattan and Mason because it was commenced when the summons was served, not when it was delivered to the Marshal, and that Hettinger was not barred by collateral estoppel from a prior dismissal
• Harper Plastics, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp.
  657 F.2d 939· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-24 ·cited 57×
  Res judicata bars a litigant from bringing a contract claim in state court after a federal court dismissed related antitrust claims on the merits, because the litigant split its cause of action by failing to join the contract claim in the federal action.
• Richman v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  437 F.2d 196· 1st Cir.· 1971-02-03 ·cited 56×
  The court held that dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion, as lesser sanctions were available and appropriate.
• Keegan v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co.
  155 F.2d 971· 5th Cir.· 1946-06-13 ·cited 56×
  The court held that absent owners of overriding royalty interests were indispensable parties, and their joinder was necessary for the court to proceed.
• Chism v. Nat'l Heritage Life Ins. Co.
  637 F.2d 1328· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice due to the plaintiff's persistent failure to comply with discovery rules and court orders, and that the Doe defendants did not destroy diversity jurisdiction as no claims wer
• Shull v. Dain
  561 F.2d 152· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-26 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all counts, finding no clear error in the factual determinations regarding fraud, statutes of limitations, the absence of a private right of action for certain rule violations, and the determination that the defendant did not '
• Huey v. Teledyne, Inc.
  608 F.2d 1234· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 54×
  The court held that while the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper, the refusal to certify the class action is not reviewable on appeal due to the policy against piecemeal appeals, but the case is remanded for technical correction of the dismissal order.
• McGOWAN v. Faulkner Concrete Pipe Co.
  659 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 53×
  The court held that dismissal under Rule 41(b) was an abuse of discretion absent a clear record of intentional delay or contumacious conduct, and that denial of class certification was not an abuse of discretion given the plaintiffs' delay and financial concerns.
• Gordon v. Leeke
  574 F.2d 1147· 4th Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 53×
  The court held that a district court is not required to act as an advocate for a pro se litigant, but should liberally construe pleadings and may advise the litigant.
• Lieberman v. Gant
  630 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-17 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding comparative and statistical evidence and that the denial of tenure was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
• Hagans v. Andrus
  651 F.2d 622· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court applied an improper legal standard by rigidly applying the fourth prong of the McDonnell Douglas test, and that a finding of 'absolutely no hint' of discrimination was clearly erroneous.
• Cemer v. Marathon OIL Co.
  583 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1978-08-21 ·cited 50×
  The scope of a federal court's judgment, including dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6), is governed by federal law, specifically Rule 41(b), which dictates that such dismissals operate as adjudications on the merits and bar subsequent suits on the same cause of action.