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

• Connolly v. Papachristid Shipping Ltd.
  504 F.2d 917· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances.
• Safeway Stores v. Fannan
  308 F.2d 94· 9th Cir.· 1962-09-11 ·cited 34×
  A trial court may dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) on its own motion after a defendant moves for a directed verdict, but such dismissal must be based on judicial discretion, not arbitrary choice, and the record must support the decision to dismiss without prejudice.
• Moore v. The City OF SAN Jose
  615 F.2d 1265· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-01 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement agreement, its dismissal of claims against the Association, and its denial of attorneys' fees.
• Riegel Fiber Corp. v. Anderson GIN Co.
  512 F.2d 784· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that Riegel was a third-party beneficiary entitled to enforce the individual farmer contracts and that the contracts' quantity terms were sufficiently definite under the UCC to be enforceable, and that denying enforcement due to failure to qualify to do business in
• Johnson v. Artim Transp. Sys., Inc.
  826 F.2d 538· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the hybrid claim as time-barred and the judgment for the union on the Title VII claim, finding no clear error in the district court's factual findings.
• Locascio v. Teletype Corp.
  694 F.2d 497· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
• Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  677 F.2d 339· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice for failure to promptly secure local counsel in a transferred action is an excessive sanction absent a clear record of contumacious conduct or prejudice to the defendant.
• Hebron v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal.
  634 F.2d 245· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff was a borrowed employee of Union Oil, making his exclusive remedy worker's compensation under the LHWCA, and that neither the vessel owner nor Union Oil were negligent.
• Silver v. KCA, Inc.
  586 F.2d 138· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 32×
  An employer's discharge of an employee for opposing a co-worker's racial slur does not constitute an unlawful employment practice under Title VII, as the opposition must be directed at an unlawful employment practice by the employer.
• Duval v. Midwest Auto City, Inc.
  578 F.2d 721· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 32×
  A defendant waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence by introducing their own evidence after a motion for dismissal is denied or reserved. The award of attorney fees under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act is not an abuse of discr
• Limin Kung v. FOM Inv. Corp.
  563 F.2d 1316· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that summary judgment was proper due to conclusory allegations unsupported by fact, and dismissal for lack of prosecution was not an abuse of discretion.
• Asociacion de Empleados del Instituto de Cultura Puertor-Riquena v. Morales
  538 F.2d 915· 1st Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
• Bach v. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., Inc.
  148 F.2d 407· 6th Cir.· 1945-03-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that in a non-jury case dismissed under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a).
• Johnson v. Neel
  2013 WL 6231181· M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-25 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's amended complaint, which suffered from the same deficiencies as the original complaint despite clear instructions to cure them, should be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order.
• Sack v. LOW
  478 F.2d 360· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-13 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Massachusetts court's order, amended to clarify it was not an adjudication on the merits, removed the res judicata bar to the New York action. The court also found that the New York borrowing statute's application was not definitively established by the re
• Halaco Eng'g Co. v. Costle
  843 F.2d 376· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the EPA's counterclaim based on its inherent powers, as the EPA's misconduct did not warrant such a severe sanction.
• Cohen v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
  782 F.2d 923· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 30×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice for failure to obtain local counsel was an abuse of discretion when lesser sanctions were not considered and there was no clear record of delay or willful contempt.
• Dorothea N. Hornbuckle v. Arco OIL & GAS Co.
  732 F.2d 1233· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a trial court must assess a litigant's ability to pay sanctions before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute, and if unable to pay, consider alternative sanctions.
• Stevens v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  710 F.2d 1224· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute and for failure to cooperate in discovery, nor in denying the plaintiff's motion for relief from the dismissal order.
• Glaziers & Glassworkers Local Union # 767 v. Custom Auto Glass Distribs.
  689 F.2d 1339· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that employers are precluded from asserting, as a defense to a section 301 action, that the union lacked majority status at the time of the collective bargaining agreement's execution, due to the preemption of this issue under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
• Lames Junior v. Texaco, Inc.
  688 F.2d 377· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff's resignation was not a constructive discharge because the work environment was not made so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.
• Lyell Theatre Corp. & Martina Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp.
  682 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
• Holden v. Comm'n Against Discrimination OF the Commonwealth OF Mass.
  671 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1982-02-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Act claims were time-barred because the statute of limitations began to run on the date of notice of termination, and the Title VII claim was properly dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish race discrimination.
• Martin-Trigona v. Morris
  627 F.2d 680· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the pro se complaint for failure to prosecute, as there was a clear record of delay and contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.
• Khalid Choudhry v. Jenkins
  559 F.2d 1085· 7th Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 30×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  Summary judgment for the employer was proper because the employee's speech, despite being on a matter of public concern, was disruptive to the essential functions of the prison and outweighed his First Amendment rights.
• Marshall v. Allyn R. Sielaff
  492 F.2d 917· 3d Cir.· 1974-02-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for lack of prosecution, affirming the dismissal.
• Mann v. Merrill Lynch
  488 F.2d 75· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-07 ·cited 30×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, even if phrased as for disobedience, does not operate as res judicata.
• Joseph v. Donover Co.
  261 F.2d 812· 9th Cir.· 1958-11-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous, thus affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff's cause of action.
• Romandette v. Weetabix Co., Inc.
  807 F.2d 309· 2d Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for failure to effect service and abused its discretion in dismissing for neglect to prosecute, given the plaintiff's special circumstances as an incarcerated pro se litigant.
• Parrott v. Wilson
  707 F.2d 1262· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying a jury trial, admitting a deposition due to witness unavailability, vitiating work product privilege due to unprofessional conduct, or in dismissing the case based on evidence of justificatio
• Hepperle v. Johnston
  590 F.2d 609· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-02 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal for want of prosecution was not an abuse of discretion, and the failure to rule on the recusal motion was not reversible error. The motion to disqualify appellate judges was denied.
• Grant v. Cnty. OF Seminole
  817 F.2d 731· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to a county ordinance restricting mobile home locations, finding the ordinance rationally related to legitimate government interests.
• Founding Church OF Scientology OF Wash. v. Webster
  802 F.2d 1448· D.C. Cir.· 1986-09-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case as a sanction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 for the founder's failure to appear for a court-ordered deposition, as he was deemed a managing agent of the organization.
• Olympic Sports Prods., Inc. v. Universal Athletic Sales Co.
  760 F.2d 910· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-22 ·cited 28×
  The dissent argues that former Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 583(b) is a mandatory dismissal statute, not subject to federal preemption under Hanna v. Plumer, and that the majority misinterprets California law regarding its exceptions and its analogy to statutes of limitations.
• Khushro Ghandi v. Police Dep't OF the City OF Detroit
  747 F.2d 338· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed dismissal of claims against the FBI based on sovereign immunity and affirmed summary judgment for federal agents due to qualified immunity and lack of evidence. It reversed summary judgment for some federal defendants and remanded for further proceedings.
• Kentroti v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.
  585 F.2d 967· 10th Cir.· 1978-10-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff's claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, finding that the plaintiff was not a pilot within the meaning of the collective bargaining agreement and that his discharge was not discriminatory
• Fong SIK Leung Ad Litem for Fong Gar Hong v. Dulles
  226 F.2d 74· 9th Cir.· 1955-07-28 ·cited 28×
• Essie R. McDANIEL v. Temple Indep. Sch. Dist.
  770 F.2d 1340· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 27×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court erred by not disclosing damaging statements made by the client's attorney to the judge, and that this error was not harmless.
• Pickel v. United States
  746 F.2d 176· 3d Cir.· 1984-10-05 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court erred in quashing IRS summonses based on a sequestration order violation, failure to disclose an informant's identity, or the IRS using its civil arm for a criminal investigation, as these grounds were insufficient under current law.
• Ekanem v. The Health & Hosp. Corp. OF Marion Cnty.
  724 F.2d 563· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-14 ·cited 27×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court affirmed the dismissal of most individual and class claims, finding no clear error in the district court's factual findings and legal conclusions, and granted a motion to strike an appendix volume.
• Thompson v. Smith Barney
  709 F.2d 1413· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-18 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the churning claim and finding for the defendant on the omission-to-disclose claim, as the plaintiff either knew of the risks or could have discovered them with reasonable diligence.
• Bernadine Raiford v. Pounds
  640 F.2d 944· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that dismissal for failure to prosecute was too harsh a sanction under the circumstances, but affirmed the district court's order limiting the participation of out-of-state counsel.
• Papilsky v. Berndt
  466 F.2d 251· 2d Cir.· 1972-08-01 ·cited 27×
  A dismissal of a stockholder's derivative suit for failure to answer interrogatories, without notice to nonparty stockholders, does not operate as a res judicata bar to an identical cause of action asserted by another stockholder in a subsequent derivative suit.
• 3 Penny Theater Corp. v. Plitt Theatres, Inc.
  812 F.2d 337· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and in denying the motion to vacate the dismissal under Rule 60(b).
• Eugene duPONT, III v. S. Nat'l Bank OF Houston
  771 F.2d 874· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in invalidating property transfers without allowing the appellants to present their evidence, and that attorney ad litem fees should be taxed to the Trust. The court affirmed the validity of the Trust and other rulings.
• Dynes v. Army AIR Force Exch. Serv.
  720 F.2d 1495· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-24 ·cited 26×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that a Bivens claim for damages is not available for a federal employee's due process violation in employment termination proceedings when a comprehensive administrative remedy scheme exists.
• Childs v. Local 18
  719 F.2d 1379· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed Title VII claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and affirmed the dismissal of Section 1981, Section 1985, and LMRDA claims.
• PRC Harris, Inc. v. The Boeing Co.
  700 F.2d 894· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a plaintiff's attempt to amend a prior judgment to 'without prejudice' after an adverse ruling in another jurisdiction is ineffective.
• Chira v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
  634 F.2d 664· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-14 ·cited 26×
  A district court's dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders is reversible only for an abuse of discretion.
• Keenan v. Bennett
  613 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-10 ·cited 26×
  A prisoner's claim challenging the revocation of good-time credits, even if framed as a due process violation under § 1983 and seeking damages, must be treated as a habeas corpus petition requiring exhaustion of state remedies.