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

• McCARGO v. Oley G. Hedrick
  545 F.2d 393· 4th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 26×
  A local rule imposing excessive and overly detailed pretrial requirements is void for being inconsistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, and dismissal under such a rule constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Denofre v. Transp. Ins. Rating Bureau
  532 F.2d 43· 7th Cir.· 1976-03-26 ·cited 26×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a) when granting a Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss.
• Navarro v. Chief OF Police
  523 F.2d 214· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute, as the plaintiff's conduct did not demonstrate a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct.
• Falsetti v. Local Union NO. 2026
  355 F.2d 658· 3d Cir.· 1966-01-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, regardless of whether a state or federal period was applied.
• Camps v. C & P Tel. Co.
  692 F.2d 120· D.C. Cir.· 1981-12-31 ·cited 25×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court's dismissal should be affirmed, but without prejudice to the appellant filing a motion to reinstate the case under Rule 60(b).
• Summit Off. Park, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp.
  639 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-19 ·cited 25×
  The dissent argues that the majority's interpretation of Rule 15(a) is an unwarranted judicial amendment that improperly restricts a party's ability to amend a complaint.
• Soliz v. Plunkett
  615 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-09 ·cited 25×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) (Involuntary Dismissal)
  The court held that the district court prematurely dismissed the action because the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that Plunkett was a farm labor contractor under the Act.
• J. F. Edwards Constr. Co. v. Anderson Safeway Guard Rail Corp.
  542 F.2d 1318· 7th Cir.· 1976-10-21 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a district court cannot compel parties to stipulate facts, and sanctions imposed for failure to do so are improper.
• N. Miss. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jones
  792 F.2d 1330· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the record supported the dismissal of antitrust claims but that factual findings on the civil rights claim were insufficient, requiring remand.
• United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  648 F.2d 642· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that licensing foreign patents does not violate antitrust laws, and that fear of patent infringement, not conspiracy, explained Mitsubishi's requests for approval. The court also affirmed discovery sanctions, except for a portion deemed excessive.
• Correa v. Nampa Sch. Dist. NO. 131
  645 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for her Title VII, due process, and First Amendment claims, and that the employer provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the non-renewal of her contract.
• Ezra Hodge v. McLEAN Trucking Co.
  607 F.2d 1118· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-05 ·cited 24×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that a plaintiff must prove a discriminatory act within 180 days of filing an EEOC complaint, and a racially neutral seniority system, even if perpetuating past discrimination, is not actionable in itself.
• Citizens Utils. Co. v. The Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  595 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that dismissing the action for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion, given the defendants' significant contributions to the delay.
• Forrest Petty v. Manpower, Inc.
  591 F.2d 615· 10th Cir.· 1979-02-12 ·cited 24×
  An order dismissing a complaint for lack of prosecution, when intended by the district court to dismiss the entire action, is an appealable order.
• Glick v. Ballentine Produce, Inc.
  397 F.2d 590· 8th Cir.· 1968-07-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the one-year period under the Missouri wrongful death statute's savings clause began to run from the date of this court's mandate, not from the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, and that the initial suit was not covered by the savings clause as it was not
• Joseph v. Norton Co.
  273 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1959-12-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's suit with prejudice under Rule 41(b) when trial counsel refused to proceed due to the alleged illness of assisting counsel.
• Royster Drive-In Theatres, Inc. v. Am. Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc.
  268 F.2d 246· 2d Cir.· 1959-06-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and that the plaintiff failed to prove a continuing conspiracy or damages resulting from any violation of law.
• Ira W. Nichol v. Pullman Standard, Inc.
  889 F.2d 115· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 23×
  The court held that an employee can waive entitlement to long-term disability benefits under an ERISA welfare benefit plan, and that the severance agreements were validly entered into.
• Scarborough v. Eubanks
  747 F.2d 871· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 23×
  The court held that dismissal as a sanction for dilatory conduct was an abuse of discretion because the district court failed to adequately consider alternative sanctions and the plaintiff's conduct, while tardy, did not warrant such an extreme penalty.
• Beecher v. Able
  575 F.2d 1010· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-13 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a settlement agreement's explicit non-reversion clause barred the defendant from recovering unclaimed settlement funds, even if the number of claimants was lower than anticipated, and that the district court had the equitable power to reallocate funds for fair
• U. S. Fibres, Inc. v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
  509 F.2d 1043· 6th Cir.· 1975-01-17 ·cited 23×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) (Involuntary Dismissal)
  The court held that the seller did not breach express or implied warranties, commit fraud, or act negligently, and that the buyer's own actions caused the product defects.
• Velazquez-Rivera v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.
  920 F.2d 1072· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that dismissal of the action was an excessive sanction for the attorney's inadvertent failure to appear at a pretrial conference, constituting an abuse of discretion.
• Romero v. The City OF Pomona
  883 F.2d 1418· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion to reopen their case, in its application of the geographical compactness test, or in denying defendants' motion to retax costs for expert witness fees.
• Eldridge v. Block
  832 F.2d 1132· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the pro se prisoner's timely request for an extension to file an amended complaint, especially when the prisoner lacked access to the necessary local rules, and thus the subsequent dismissal was also an abuse
• Holloway v. A.L. Lockhart
  813 F.2d 874· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a local rule conditioning discovery on leave of court for prisoner petitions is invalid because it conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that summary judgment was inappropriate due to genuine issues of material fact and insufficient discover
• In re Hill v. Shekter
  775 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the bankruptcy appeal solely for the attorney's failure to timely file a brief without considering alternative sanctions.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Univ. OF Okla.
  774 F.2d 999· 10th Cir.· 1985-10-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the order of proof in discrimination cases loses significance after a full trial and should not be treated differently from other ultimate questions of fact when applying standards for judgments n.o.v.
• Pease v. Peters
  550 F.2d 698· 1st Cir.· 1977-03-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice for lack of prosecution.
• Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp.
  527 F.2d 1168· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the third amended complaint with prejudice and denying class certification.
• Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. United States
  504 F.2d 104· 7th Cir.· 1974-09-16 ·cited 22×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the district court erred in finding Allegheny contributorily negligent, dismissing GECC as a real party in interest, and applying collateral estoppel against Forth and Carey's estate. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Brookside.
• Arie Mack Moore v. JAS. H. Matthews & Co.
  473 F.2d 328· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-29 ·cited 22×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the evidence presented and promised was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact, precluding summary judgment in an antitrust action.
• Council OF Federated Orgs. v. Hon. Sidney Mize
  339 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1964-12-22 ·cited 22×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that dismissing a complaint for failure to appear without a hearing, and without a hearing on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, constitutes an abuse of discretion and a denial of due process.
• Whit Mason v. The Am. Emery Wheel Works
  241 F.2d 906· 1st Cir.· 1957-03-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Mississippi Supreme Court would likely abandon its prior rule of non-liability for manufacturers to remote purchasers without privity, aligning with the modern trend of imposing such liability.
• Galdi v. Jones
  141 F.2d 984· 2d Cir.· 1944-04-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the stockholder actions based on indispensable party issues and insufficient pleading of stock ownership and reasons for not making a demand.
• Holmes v. Bevilacqua
  794 F.2d 142· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 21×
• Hall v. Burger King Corp.
  912 F. Supp. 1509· S.D. Fla.· 1995-11-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by general releases they had executed, as the releases were clear, unambiguous, and the plaintiffs were aware of their claims and represented by counsel when signing them.
• Wellington Mitchell v. Baldrige
  759 F.2d 80· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a plaintiff must have a full and fair opportunity to rebut nondiscriminatory reasons presented after resting their case before a Rule 41(b) dismissal can be granted. The court also clarified the elements of a prima facie case under Title VII.
• Morris v. Ocean Sys., Inc.
  730 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an involuntary dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute was an inappropriate exercise of judicial discretion when the record did not show a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and lesser sanctions were not considered.
• D.A. Rickards v. Belkin and John S. Sleasman
  704 F.2d 1449· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-03 ·cited 20×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that summary judgment was properly granted on the antitrust damages claim due to lack of evidence, and that the magistrate properly dismissed the antitrust injunctive claims and granted a directed verdict on the tortious interference claim because the evidence did
• McKENZIE v. United States
  678 F.2d 571· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-14 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the judgment for the United States in the FTCA action, finding no clear error in the factual determination that the dog was not owned by a government employee. The court vacated the judgment in the removed state action, finding the district court lacked subject
• Harrell v. N. Elec. Co.
  672 F.2d 444· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the statistical evidence presented a prima facie case of class-wide racial discrimination in hiring for clerical positions, and the employer's justifications were insufficient to rebut this showing. Individual claims were also found to have merit.
• Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana
  662 F.2d 1275· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-21 ·cited 20×
  The court vacated the order of dismissal and remanded the case.
• Bush v. The United States Postal Serv.
  496 F.2d 42· 4th Cir.· 1974-04-29 ·cited 20×
  The court would affirm dismissal for failure to prosecute, but for a peculiar circumstance regarding how the hearing date was set.
• Am. Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. of Chicago v. United States
  142 F.2d 571· D.C. Cir.· 1944-05-08 ·cited 20×
  A dismissal for want of prosecution, when not specified otherwise, operates as an adjudication on the merits and bars a subsequent suit under the principle of res judicata.
• Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. OF TAX Review & Tax Assessor
  922 F.2d 168· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 19×
  A district court cannot grant summary judgment solely based on a local rule deeming a motion conceded due to non-response; it must still determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp.
  891 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions because the defendants' insistence on Hague Convention service was warranted by existing law and not for an improper purpose. The court affirmed the denial of discovery sanctions and the ta
• Napier v. Thirty OR More Unidentified Federal Agents
  855 F.2d 1080· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 18×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the district court's order determining sanctions liability was not appealable until the amount was fixed, and that the appeal was timely. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on multiple grounds but remanded the sanctions award to the American Leg
• Stephenson v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc.
  839 F.2d 1095· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a plaintiff's failure to read account statements and timely complain about unauthorized trades, despite extensive financial knowledge, constituted recklessness, barring a Rule 10b-5 claim and supporting equitable defenses.
• Terry Props., Inc. v. Standard OIL Co. (IND)
  799 F.2d 1523· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings on liability for race discrimination and interference claims, but reversed the award of attorney's fees for some appellees.
• Price v. Andrew "Duke" McGLATHERY, Jr.
  792 F.2d 472· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case due to the plaintiff's attorney's repeated failure to comply with court orders and failure to appear at a scheduled conference.