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

• L. Skalney Basket Co. v. S.S. Radnik
  312 F.2d 177· 2d Cir.· 1963-01-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that striking the shipowner's answer for failure to comply with a discovery order was not an abuse of discretion.
• Ordnance Gauge Co. v. Jacquard Knitting Mach. Co., Inc.
  265 F.2d 189· 3d Cir.· 1959-02-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) was appropriate, even if the dismissal was intended to be without prejudice, and affirmed the lower court's judgment.
• Klein v. Burns Mfg. Co., Inc.
  245 F.2d 269· 2d Cir.· 1957-05-28 ·cited 4×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the design patent was invalid because the design lacked originality and aesthetic appeal, and therefore, the evidence should not have been submitted to the jury.
• Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. of Moline
  244 F.2d 9· 8th Cir.· 1957-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's repeated lawsuits based on the same contract were legally untenable and affirmed the dismissal of the action.
• Frese v. Hayes
  240 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-09 ·cited 4×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  A purchaser cannot obtain rescission of an executed real estate transaction due to an encroachment when they failed to exercise reasonable diligence, such as obtaining a survey after being advised to do so by their own counsel, absent actual fraud.
• Reynolds v. Wabash R.R. Co.
  236 F.2d 387· 8th Cir.· 1956-09-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in vacating an order that improperly added parties to destroy diversity jurisdiction and in dismissing the case for want of prosecution.
• Smith v. Ford GUM & Mach. Co., Inc.
  212 F.2d 581· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal order, and affirmed the judgment as modified.
• Refior v. Lansing Drop Forge Co.
  134 F.2d 894· 6th Cir.· 1943-04-06 ·cited 4×
  A state court suit does not arise under federal law merely because it is a collateral attack on a federal judgment, especially when the federal judgment is a dismissal on the merits that can be pleaded as res judicata.
• Liubimtseva v. The Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it has the discretion to dismiss a case without prejudice for failure to comply with local rules, specifically for failing to respond to a motion to dismiss.
• The Paddington Corp. v. Attiki Importers & Distribs., Inc.
  996 F.2d 577· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Paddington's trade dress infringement claim, finding the No. 12 Ouzo trade dress inherently distinctive and the trade dresses substantially similar, and that Attiki acted in bad faith.
• Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
  942 F.2d 648· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute and retained jurisdiction to clarify its order despite the filing of an appeal.
• Ignatius G. ANG v. The Procter & Gamble Co.
  932 F.2d 540· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the appellant's claims for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, national origin discrimination under Title VII, and retaliatory discharge. The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims.
• Figgous v. Allied/Bendix Corp.
  906 F.2d 360· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-22 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no clear error in the determination that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory discharge or retaliation.
• Bristol Petroleum Corp. v. Harris
  901 F.2d 165· D.C. Cir.· 1990-04-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to appear at a status conference through counsel, nor in denying the motion to reinstate.
• Weyher/Livsey Constructors, Inc. v. Int'l Chem. Co.
  864 F.2d 130· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that terms on the reverse of a purchase order do not need to be conspicuous under the UCC if they are express warranties and not disclaimers. The case is remanded for determination of enforceability under general contract principles.
• Brooks v. The United States & Walter M. Pelzer, D.O.
  837 F.2d 958· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 3×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) (Involuntary Dismissal)
  The court held that the trial court erred in striking plaintiff's expert witness without sufficient justification and in granting a directed verdict for the defendant physician, as material issues of fact remained for the jury.
• Martin-Trigona v. Gellis & Melinger
  830 F.2d 367· D.C. Cir.· 1987-10-06 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a pro se litigant's deliberate and announced refusal to comply with court orders, even after being warned of potential dismissal, warrants involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b).
• Bernetta Hilbun v. Goldberg
  823 F.2d 881· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-10 ·cited 3×
  When an earlier action is dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, the interruption of prescription is annulled, and prescription runs without interruption from the date of the occurrence.
• Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Warner
  665 F. Supp. 1549· S.D. Fla.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by filing a prior state court action, and thus denied the motion for summary judgment and preliminary injunction.
• Bernie Bierman v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  604 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-17 ·cited 3×
  A dismissal for failure to prosecute, even if sua sponte, operates as an adjudication on the merits unless otherwise specified, barring subsequent claims under res judicata.
• Mackroy v. Troutman
  2021 WL 780196· M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a judge should not recuse based on unsupported allegations of bias, and denied motions seeking recognition of a 'sacred title and sigil' and damages.
• Wiesenberg v. Costa Crociere
  35 So. 3d 910· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-02-24 ·cited 2×
  Wiesenberg sued Costa Crociere for personal injuries sustained as a cruise ship passenger. The trial court dismissed based on res judicata, but the appellate court reversed that reasoning and affirmed the dismissal on the alternative ground that the forum selection clause in the
• In re Se. Banking Corp. Sec. & Loan Loss Reserves Litig.
  212 B.R. 397· S.D. Fla.· 1997-08-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff and his counsel willfully violated court orders and engaged in abusive litigation practices, warranting dismissal of the case with prejudice.
• Confederate Mem'l Ass'n, Inc. v. Hines
  995 F.2d 295· D.C. Cir.· 1993-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the RICO claim with prejudice but vacated the dismissal of state law claims and Rule 11 sanctions for lack of explanation.
• S. Travel Club, Inc. v. Carnival AIR Lines, Inc.
  986 F.2d 125· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-24 ·cited 2×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) (Involuntary Dismissal)
  The court held that an order awarding attorney's fees or costs is not reviewable on appeal until the award is reduced to a sum certain, and affirmed the dismissal of breach of contract claims based on a valid release.
• Landon v. Hunt
  977 F.2d 829· 3d Cir.· 1992-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of involuntary petitions and imposition of sanctions, finding the petitions were filed in bad faith by creditors with no valid claims.
• Hoover v. Langston Equip. Assocs., Inc.
  958 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint as time-barred and for failure to plead fraud with particularity, and did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
• Morgan v. United States
  958 F.2d 950· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-11 ·cited 2×
  A possessor of cash seized by the IRS, who is not the owner, lacks standing to seek judicial review of a jeopardy assessment under 26 U.S.C. § 7429.
• Jourdan v. Jabe
  951 F.2d 108· 6th Cir.· 1991-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The relaxed pleading standard for pro se litigants does not extend to procedural matters like court-imposed discovery deadlines.
• Terrell v. R.D. Brewer
  935 F.2d 1015· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be without prejudice, and affirmed summary judgment for one defendant while reversing and remanding the dismissal of another.
• Omaha Indian Tribe v. Tract I-Blackbird Bend Area: Agric. & Indus. Inv. Co.
  933 F.2d 1462· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Tribe's quiet title action with prejudice due to the Tribe's intentional and willful noncompliance with court orders and rules.
• Pozsgay v. Sw. Ill. Health Facilities, Inc.
  924 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-05 ·cited 2×
  A district court cannot dismiss a complaint without prejudice as to certain remedies when the plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn those remedies from a case that is otherwise ready for final judgment.
• Livera v. First Nat'l State Bank OF NEW Jersey
  879 F.2d 1186· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the SBA's counterclaim without considering the Poulis factors, and that the Livera group's claims against the SBA were properly dismissed for failure to file an administrative claim. The court also held th
• McDONALD v. Krajewski
  874 F.2d 454· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 2×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
• In re Donovan v. Donovan
  871 F.2d 807· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The BAP abused its discretion by dismissing the appeal without considering alternative sanctions or the relative culpability of the appellant and counsel.
• Smith-Bey v. Clair A. Cripe
  852 F.2d 592· D.C. Cir.· 1988-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaint sua sponte without providing notice, and thus vacated the dismissal and remanded the case.
• Am. Inmate Paralegal Assoc. v. Cline
  859 F.2d 59· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appellants' pro se complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with court orders and as a sanction under Rule 11.
• Lucas v. Dole
  835 F.2d 532· 4th Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination under Title VII, despite the job not remaining open.
• Khushro Ghandi v. Police Dep't OF the City OF Detroit
  823 F.2d 959· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to preserve claims of gross negligence and that the district court's findings regarding the agents' lack of instruction to the informant and the informant's status as a non-governmental actor were not clearly erroneous.
• O'Donnell v. Sheriff Pat Thomas
  814 F.2d 524· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make specific factual findings on all material issues presented by the plaintiff's claims before dismissing the case under Rule 41(b).
• Magyar v. United Fire Ins. Co.
  811 F.2d 1330· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the plaintiff's testimony as a sanction for nonresponsive and evasive answers, nor in dismissing the case thereafter.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. W. Bros. Dep't Store OF Mansfield
  805 F.2d 1171· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by devising a non-discriminatory reason for the employer's actions, rather than requiring the employer to articulate such a reason.
• Howard J. and Camilla J. Sherman v. United States
  801 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 2×
  A district court may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute a related case in Tax Court, even if the Tax Court case is in a different jurisdiction.
• Torras Herreria y Construcciones, S.A. v. M/V Timur Star
  803 F.2d 215· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's notice of appeal was untimely because the underlying Rule 52(b) motion was not filed within the granted extensions.
• Bundrick v. The United States
  785 F.2d 1009· Fed. Cir.· 1986-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Claims Court erred in applying res judicata to the Public Law 93-530 claim, but correctly found the Fifth Amendment taking claim time-barred.
• Taylor v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc.
  782 F.2d 525· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a Rule 41(b) dismissal, whether as a sanction or on the merits, was inappropriate given the circumstances.
• Holmes v. Bevilacqua
  774 F.2d 636· 4th Cir.· 1985-10-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) because it found no evidence of intentional discrimination, even if a prima facie case was established.
• Alires v. Amoco Prod. Co.
  774 F.2d 409· 10th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff's case under Rule 41(b) because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and had a full opportunity to present evidence.
• Getty Ref. & Mktg. Co. v. MT Fadi B
  766 F.2d 829· 3d Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 2×
  A party cannot recover economic losses sustained due to another's negligence if there is no physical damage to person or property, adhering to the rule established in Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint.
• Sisk v. United States
  756 F.2d 497· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would not reverse the trial court's dismissal, finding the plaintiff's claim to be a small matter of neglect.