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

• Harris v. Birmingham Bd. OF Educ.
  712 F.2d 1377· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 49×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) (Involuntary Dismissal)
  The court held that the trial court's finding of no discrimination was clearly erroneous due to an erroneous view of controlling legal principles regarding past discrimination, lack of standards, and subjective hiring. The court affirmed the denial of class certification but reve
• Moore v. Telfon Commc'ns Corp.
  589 F.2d 959· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-09 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the counterclaim and denial of the venue motion, affirmed the denial of attorney's fees, and affirmed the jury verdict in the privacy action, but remanded the disposition of the cross-complaint due to confusion.
• Barbara Hildebrand and husband v. Honeywell, Inc.
  622 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to specifically plead jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute, as the facts alleged supported jurisdiction and the delay was not attributable to willful misconduct by the plaintiffs.
• Louis M. Damiani, M.D. v. R.I. Hosp.
  704 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for willful misconduct of counsel in failing to comply with discovery orders.
• Kermit Constr. Corp. v. Banco Credito Y Ahorro Ponceno
  547 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1976-12-29 ·cited 46×
  A receiver acting under court orders shares the appointing judge's absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but a bank and corporation accused of conspiring with the receiver do not. Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and § 1981 were properly dismissed.
• Ruzicka v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  649 F.2d 1207· 6th Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 45×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  A union's failure to timely file a grievance statement, if based on reliance on a prevailing practice of granting extensions, does not constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation. Such conduct may be ordinary negligence, which is insufficient to establish liability.
• Holt v. Pitts
  619 F.2d 558· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-27 ·cited 45×
• Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Rayford J. Wright
  322 F.2d 759· 5th Cir.· 1963-09-19 ·cited 45×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the doctrine of the Law of the Case prevented relitigation of the issue of whether the suit was prescribed under LSA-Civil Code Article 3519.
• Rose v. Batson
  765 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while sanctions were appropriate for discovery non-compliance, the district court abused its discretion by imposing the severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice without considering less drastic alternatives and by awarding excessive attorney's fees.
• Bugg v. Int'l Union OF Allied Indus. Workers OF Am.
  674 F.2d 595· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that attorney's fees can be awarded to a prevailing defendant-appellee for appellate work if the plaintiff's appeal is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
• Sutton v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  646 F.2d 407· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 44×
  The court held that even if the plaintiff established a prima facie case of age discrimination, the employer articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the early retirement, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual.
• Stoleson v. United States
  629 F.2d 1265· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-12 ·cited 44×
  The discovery rule applies to Federal Tort Claims Act cases beyond medical malpractice when a plaintiff is blamelessly ignorant of the injury's cause, and the claim accrues when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the critical facts of injury and its cause.
• Elfenbein v. Gulf & W. Indus., Inc.
  590 F.2d 445· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a dismissal 'without prejudice to its renewal' is a final, appealable order, and that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead futility to excuse demand on the board.
• La Societe Anonyme des Parfums LE Galion v. Jean Patou, Inc.
  495 F.2d 1265· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that minimal sales, even if profitable, do not constitute bona fide use to sustain trademark rights when the primary purpose is to reserve the mark and block competitors, and that res judicata may not apply to a dismissal for failure to prosecute in cases of contin
• Saylor v. Thayer Lindsley
  391 F.2d 965· 2d Cir.· 1968-03-18 ·cited 44×
  A prior dismissal for failure to post a security-for-costs bond, even if 'with prejudice,' is not an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes when the plaintiff could not satisfy a precondition to proceeding.
• Wrenn v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co.
  575 F.2d 544· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-21 ·cited 43×
  The court held that dismissing a pro se plaintiff's Title VII action for late payment of a filing fee, after the plaintiff had requested counsel and filed correspondence indicating intent to sue, was an abuse of discretion.
• Gunvant D. Shah v. MT. Zion Hosp. & Med. Ctr.
  642 F.2d 268· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-11 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no merit to the plaintiff's arguments regarding dismissals and summary judgment.
• Reberta Ingram v. Vijay S. Kumar
  585 F.2d 566· 2d Cir.· 1978-10-19 ·cited 42×
  The court held that an amendment correcting a misnomer relates back to the original filing date if the defendant received notice within the period allowed for service of process, even if that period extends beyond the statute of limitations.
• In re Teltronics Servs., Inc. v. Jules J. Hessen in Bankr. of Teltronics Servs., Inc.
  762 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement is reviewed for plain error or abuse of discretion under the old Bankruptcy Act, and that res judicata bars an individual from relitigating claims already decided against a corporation with which he was in privit
• Krehl v. Baskin-Robbins ICE Cream Co.
  664 F.2d 1348· 9th Cir.· 1982-01-04 ·cited 41×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that a trademark used in a distribution franchise system is not a separate product from the goods it represents, thus precluding a tie-in claim. It also held that Baskin-Robbins' dual distribution system and alleged price discussions did not constitute per se viola
• Bertha Bldg. Corp. v. Nat'l Theatres Corp.
  248 F.2d 833· 2d Cir.· 1957-09-10 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the issue of whether the statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs' claims presented genuine issues of fact that should have been decided by a jury, not the judge.
• B.G. Toombs v. Leone
  777 F.2d 465· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Section 12(1) claim was time-barred, other federal and state securities claims failed for lack of proof of material misstatements or omissions, common law claims were unsupported by evidence, and sanctions against counsel for violating local rules were not
• Morgan v. Union Metal Mfg.
  757 F.2d 792· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the appellant did not timely appeal the judgment on the merits because the notice of appeal was filed after the time limit expired following the order dismissing the complaint, even though attorneys' fees were still pending. The court affirmed the award of att
• Boughner v. Secretary OF Health
  572 F.2d 976· 3d Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 40×
  The court held that gross neglect by an attorney, amounting to abandonment of clients, constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying relief from a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), even though the clients are generally bound by their attorney's actions
• Rinehart v. Locke
  454 F.2d 313· 7th Cir.· 1971-12-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the prior dismissal for failure to state a claim, without specification of being without prejudice, operated as res judicata, and that the statute of limitations had also expired.
• von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Comm'n
  442 F.2d 1047· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-17 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's action with prejudice for repeated failure to comply with court orders regarding pretrial statements and discovery.
• Syracuse Broad. Corp. v. Newhouse
  271 F.2d 910· 2d Cir.· 1959-11-05 ·cited 40×
  The court held that dismissal of the complaint was improper and that the preclusion order was too broad in certain respects, requiring reversal and remand.
• Hill v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  841 F.2d 1533· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-11 ·cited 39×
  The court held that plaintiffs who applied for bus operator positions and met minimum qualifications established a prima facie case of disparate treatment, but other plaintiffs did not. The court also reversed the denial of attorney's fees.
• Henderson v. Duncan
  779 F.2d 1421· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion when both parties shared responsibility for the delay and the defendant suffered no prejudice.
• Rayford v. Pryor, Jr.
  769 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the appeal from the dismissal was untimely and that the denial of the motion to retain, treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, was not an abuse of discretion due to untimeliness and lack of extraordinary circumstances.
• United States & William F. Conlon v. Balanced Fin. Mgmt., Inc.
  769 F.2d 1440· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the IRS summons was properly enforceable, the contempt dismissal was appropriate due to government failure to prosecute, and the award of attorney fees against the government was erroneous.
• Save OUR Wetlands, Inc. v. Colonel Thomas Sands
  711 F.2d 634· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 38×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) (Involuntary Dismissal)
  The court held that the Corps of Engineers adequately considered environmental impacts and alternative routes before issuing a permit, and thus did not err in dismissing the complaint.
• Gwendola M. Jones v. Graham
  709 F.2d 1457· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders, finding extreme circumstances supported dismissal as a last resort.
• Patterson v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  631 F.2d 476· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted for the 1971 and 1974 transfers, as genuine issues of material fact remained regarding customary seniority rights. The court also held that the dismissal of the locker room incident claim under Rule 41(b) was clearly err
• Paris Reizakis v. LOY
  490 F.2d 1132· 4th Cir.· 1974-01-22 ·cited 38×
  The court held that dismissal for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) requires careful judicial discretion and cannot be mechanically applied, especially when the plaintiff is not personally responsible for the attorney's conduct.
• Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Sylvania Indus. Corp.
  154 F.2d 814· 2d Cir.· 1946-03-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that an order dismissing one defense and denying a motion for summary judgment on that defense is not a final judgment and therefore not appealable.
• Schad v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
  136 F.2d 991· 3d Cir.· 1943-06-21 ·cited 38×
  A Rule 41(b) motion for involuntary dismissal in a non-jury case presents a question of law regarding whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, not a question of fact reviewable for clear error.
• Bailey v. USX Corp.
  850 F.2d 1506· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-02 ·cited 37×
  Former employees have standing to sue for retaliation under Title VII, but the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case of retaliation on the merits.
• Darlington v. Studebaker-Packard Corp.
  261 F.2d 903· 7th Cir.· 1959-01-02 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate dismissal for lack of prosecution, nor did it err in refusing to disqualify the judge based on prior attorney-client relationships unrelated to the case.
• Stock POT Rest., Inc. v. Stockpot, Inc.
  737 F.2d 1576· Fed. Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the TTAB's decision, holding that the appellee's use of the 'STOCKPOT' mark was prior to the appellant's use, and that the appellee's corporate revival and lease arrangements did not invalidate its claim.
• Sime v. Trs. OF the Cal. State Univ. & Colleges
  526 F.2d 1112· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot raise a new procedural argument for the first time on appeal, especially when the trial court could have cured the alleged error.
• Theilmann v. The Rutland Hosp., Inc.
  455 F.2d 853· 2d Cir.· 1972-02-02 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
• Molnar v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  231 F.2d 684· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-04 ·cited 36×
  A federal court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even on its own initiative, if the pleadings do not affirmatively establish jurisdiction, particularly when fictitious defendants are used to obscure citizenship.
• Refior v. Lansing Drop Forge Co.
  124 F.2d 440· 6th Cir.· 1942-01-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appellant's cause for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a conditional order, nor in striking the affidavit of bias and prejudice.
• United States v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'n
  850 F.2d 1433· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion errs in its reliance on expert testimony and its creation of a gerrymandered voting district that violates the Equal Protection Clause and the principle of one person, one vote.
• Crawford v. United States Steel Corp., & United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO
  660 F.2d 663· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-06 ·cited 35×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted against plaintiffs who had not filed EEOC charges when other similarly situated co-plaintiffs had filed charges, and that Rule 41(b) dismissals require findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• FOX v. Brewer
  620 F.2d 177· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the appeal was untimely filed and that even if treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, relief was not warranted due to lack of timely filing and insufficient grounds.
• Cent. Distribs., Inc. v. M. E. T., Inc.
  403 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-27 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to amend the pre-trial stipulation, which prevented the plaintiff from presenting evidence of damages.
• United States v. Wolfson
  558 F.2d 59· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-03 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the denial of Wolfson's petition for a writ of error coram nobis and his motion for recusal, finding no reasonable basis to question the judge's impartiality and that the claims of ineffective counsel lacked merit.
• van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp.
  529 F.2d 943· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the EEOC with prejudice for failing to comply with a court order and properly retained jurisdiction to require the EEOC to administer the consent decree.