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

• Cannon v. Loyola Univ. OF Chicago
  784 F.2d 777· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that prior dismissals of the plaintiff's suits operated as res judicata, barring the current action against all defendant medical schools.
• Ekanem v. The Health & Hosp. Corp. OF Marion Cnty.
  778 F.2d 1254· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that plaintiffs were not prevailing parties entitled to appellate attorneys fees because they did not achieve the primary relief sought and prior appellate rulings did not constitute prevailing on the merits.
• Geaney v. Carlson
  776 F.2d 140· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the magistrate's dismissal, whether characterized as voluntary or involuntary, because the dismissal was either a nonappealable voluntary dismissal or an involuntary dismissal entered without the required consent for a final app
• Jones v. Truck Drivers Local Union NO. 299
  748 F.2d 1083· 6th Cir.· 1984-11-29 ·cited 18×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that plaintiffs' Title VII and fair representation claims were properly dismissed due to failure to file charges with the EEOC and exceeding the statute of limitations, respectively. The state law claim was remanded for further findings.
• Johnson v. McKASKLE
  727 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 18×
  The district court erred in dismissing a prisoner's § 1983 action with prejudice based on res judicata, as claims arising after the Ruiz v. Estelle judgment could not have been litigated in that class action.
• Darms v. McCULLOCH OIL Corp.
  720 F.2d 490· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute, nor in denying class certification or granting partial summary judgment.
• Jehan Zeb MIR v. Fosburg
  706 F.2d 916· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute without sufficient evidence of prejudice to the defendants.
• Clair Olsen & Guitar City Studios, Inc. v. Progressive Music Supply, Inc.
  703 F.2d 432· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of most claims, but upheld the finding of a Section 1 Sherman Act violation for a conspiracy to boycott Olsen, affirming the awarded damages.
• Raceway Props., Inc. v. Emprise Corp.
  613 F.2d 656· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's order defining the relevant market was appealable, and affirmed the district court's determination that the relevant market was the franchise market, not the concession market.
• Dickerson v. United States Steel Corp.
  582 F.2d 827· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 18×
  An individual class member who is not a named plaintiff and whose class-wide claim has been dismissed cannot seek relief for an individual claim of discrimination if they have not satisfied jurisdictional prerequisites in their own name.
• M. S. v. Wermers
  557 F.2d 170· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that dismissing a minor's action for refusing to notify her parents of guardianship proceedings was an abuse of discretion, as the parents' interests were adverse to the minor's privacy claim.
• DELTA Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
  398 F.2d 323· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-24 ·cited 18×
• Crawford Transp. Co. v. Chrysler Corp. & Commercial Carriers
  338 F.2d 934· 6th Cir.· 1964-10-17 ·cited 18×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that Chrysler's plan to select and contract with a reduced number of motor carriers for vehicle delivery did not constitute an illegal tying arrangement or a violation of the Sherman Act's provisions against monopolization.
• Wolf v. Reynolds Elec. & Eng'g Co., Inc.
  304 F.2d 646· 9th Cir.· 1962-06-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court properly dismissed the case because the plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence that the defendants' crane protruded and caused the accident.
• Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales S.A. v. Brownell
  225 F.2d 532· D.C. Cir.· 1955-06-30 ·cited 18×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that dismissal of the complaint was a permissible exercise of the court's power, consistent with due process, even though the failure to produce documents was due to foreign government action.
• Peardon v. Chapman
  169 F.2d 909· 3d Cir.· 1948-09-02 ·cited 18×
  The dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for lack of prosecution was unwarranted and is reversed.
• Laskaris v. Thornburgh
  733 F.2d 260· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-24 ·cited 17×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, meaning the prior panel decision stands.
• Hall v. Tower Land & Inv. Co.
  512 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-02 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff's second suit was barred by res judicata because it involved the same cause of action as a prior dismissed suit.
• Vargas v. Peltz
  901 F. Supp. 1572· S.D. Fla.· 1995-03-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's fabrication of evidence and perjury constituted a fraud on the court, warranting dismissal of the action with prejudice.
• In re Pyramid Energy, Ltd. v. Heyl & Patterson, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1058· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-27 ·cited 16×
  A party is bound by its counsel's actions, and repeated failure to comply with court orders, even due to counsel's dilatory conduct, justifies dismissal with prejudice.
• Ojeda-Toro v. Rivera-Mendez
  853 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a party cannot use Rule 60(b) to evade the consequences of a conscious decision not to appeal, nor can they claim fraud or excusable neglect when they had access to information or were aware of counsel's actions.
• A.M. Jatoi v. Hurst-Euless-Bedford Hosp. Auth.
  807 F.2d 1214· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Dr. Jatoi's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1985 were improperly dismissed and that the HEB Hospital Authority's actions could constitute state action for a § 1983 claim.
• Gibbs v. King
  779 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prisoner's due process rights were violated by a disciplinary conviction for violating an unposted policy, requiring remand for factual findings. However, other due process claims, First Amendment challenges to a disciplinary rule, and harassment claims were
• Blankenship v. Herzfeld
  661 F.2d 840· 10th Cir.· 1981-10-09 ·cited 16×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the district court's finding that Helene Curtis acted independently in terminating the plaintiff's distributorship was not clearly erroneous, affirming dismissal of claims against Helene Curtis. However, the court reversed and remanded the dismissal of claims
• Jones v. Bell Helicopter Co.
  614 F.2d 1389· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 16×
  An individual cannot bring a private Title VII action based on the same claim as an earlier EEOC action if that action was dismissed on the merits due to the EEOC's failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Eulalio Frausto and Peter L. Smith v. Legal AID Soc'y OF SAN Diego, Inc.
  563 F.2d 1324· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that poor interview performance, unstable employment history, poor reputation, and inability to get along with people are legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for rejecting an employment application under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
• Lang v. Cone
  542 F.2d 751· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that any procedural error in dismissing one claim was harmless.
• A. & N. Club v. Great Am. Ins. Co.
  404 F.2d 100· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-05 ·cited 16×
  A defendant who proceeds with presenting evidence after the court reserves ruling on a motion to dismiss waives the right to appeal the disposition of that motion.
• Garden Homes, Inc. v. Mason
  249 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1957-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and that federal jurisdiction was properly established.
• Greene v. Meese
  875 F.2d 639· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-24 ·cited 15×
  A federal prisoner's suit seeking both damages and restoration of good-time credits is predominantly a habeas corpus action requiring complete exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Taylor v. Hudson Pulp & Paper Corp.
  788 F.2d 1455· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-09 ·cited 15×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the district court's finding that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination was not clearly erroneous, as they did not demonstrate futility in applying for transfers or promotions during the actionable period.
• Franks v. The Kroger Co.
  649 F.2d 1216· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 15×
  The court reversed the settlement agreement, finding it not in the best interest of the class members due to unequal benefits and the burden placed on individuals to prove discrimination.
• Hammac v. Windham
  119 So. 2d 822· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-04-07 ·cited 15×
  Betty Hammac appealed from a summary judgment dismissing her negligence action based on res judicata. The court held that a final judgment dismissing a complaint for failure to state a cause of action operates as an adjudication on the merits under Florida Rule 1.35(b), barring a
• Jones v. Law Firm of Hill & Ponton
  141 F. Supp. 2d 1349· M.D. Fla.· 2001-03-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's domicile was previously determined in a related case, and the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing redressable harm for his legal malpractice claims.
• Zimmerman v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co.
  932 F.2d 469· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 14×
  Oral promises of lifetime employment are barred by the Texas statute of frauds, and an employee handbook, absent an express agreement to discharge only for cause, does not modify the at-will employment doctrine.
• Wages v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  915 F.2d 1230· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-09 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's post-judgment order, finding that while the dismissal of IRS claims on the merits was erroneous, the dismissal of claims against individual defendants was not, and the imposition of sanctions was proper.
• Fruit v. Norris
  905 F.2d 1147· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim was improper because the inmates presented sufficient evidence of a prima facie violation, including dangers beyond toxic gases, to survive a Rule 41(b) dismissal.
• Ellis J. Ducrepont v. Baton Rouge Marine Enters., Inc.
  877 F.2d 393· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-18 ·cited 14×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that a stationary barge used primarily as a work platform, even if originally designed for navigation, is not a vessel under the Jones Act or Section 5(b) of the LHWCA.
• In re Funkhouser
  873 F.2d 1076· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Magistrate's undue delay in processing an in forma pauperis prisoner civil rights action and his procedural handling of partial filing fees were improper.
• W. Martin Haskell, M.D. v. Wash. Twp.
  864 F.2d 1266· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendants waived their statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it in their initial responsive pleading. The court also found that the district court's rulings on standing were conflicting and that the Rule 41(b) dismissal was subject to a clear
• Dunbar v. Triangle Lumber & Supply Co.
  816 F.2d 126· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that dismissal under Rule 41(b) requires consideration of the client's personal responsibility and the merits of the claim, and that the district court abused its discretion by not fully considering these factors.
• Palmer v. City OF Decatur
  814 F.2d 426· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that dismissing a pro se, incarcerated plaintiff's case with prejudice for failure to obtain counsel and respond to a motion within a short timeframe, without adequate notice, constituted an abuse of discretion.
• Dyer v. Greif Bros., Inc.
  766 F.2d 398· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Title VII claim, and removal cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed.
• D.P. Apparel Corp. v. Roadway Express, Inc.
  736 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for damage under the Carmack Amendment.
• Braxton v. Bi-State Dev. Agency & Amalgamated Transit Union
  728 F.2d 1105· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the three lawsuits for failure to prosecute, non-compliance with court rules, and abuse of process.
• Toyota Landscape Co., Inc. v. Bldg. Material & Dump Truck Drivers Local 420
  726 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 14×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  A union's disclaimer of interest in representing employees, even if motivated by good faith or internal politics, violates a collective bargaining agreement's no-strike provision and federal labor policy.
• Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. City OF Claxton
  720 F.2d 1230· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the action was properly dismissed because service of process was defective and did not relate back to the filing date under Georgia law due to a lack of diligence by the plaintiffs.
• Minerva H. Sanders v. Gen. Servs. Admin.
  707 F.2d 969· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 14×
  A district court may grant a renewed motion for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) after initially denying it, even after the defendant has presented some evidence, if the court reconsiders the plaintiff's case alone and finds it insufficient.
• McLEARN v. Cowen & Co. & Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
  660 F.2d 845· 2d Cir.· 1981-09-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) was not available for the substantial relief sought by the appellant.
• Knox v. Lichtenstein
  654 F.2d 19· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the Bank's motion to enjoin the state court action, as it properly exercised its discretion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) to clarify a prior dismissal order.