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

• Johnson v. Boyd-Richardson Co.
  650 F.2d 147· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-03 ·cited 14×
  A dismissal for failure to name the correct party, even if later made final without explicit prejudice, does not operate as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes.
• Teltronics Servs., Inc. v. L M Ericsson Telecomms., Inc.
  642 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1981-02-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the second antitrust complaint was barred by res judicata due to the prior dismissal of the same claims on the merits.
• Freeman and Clarabelle Gray v. Fid. Acceptance Corp.
  634 F.2d 226· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction unwarranted by the record of delay in this case.
• Medeiros v. United States
  621 F.2d 468· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's action for lack of prosecution.
• McCUNE v. F. Alioto Fish Co.
  597 F.2d 1244· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a settlement agreement mooted the plaintiff's claim against the shipowner, and that the plaintiff's claim against the manufacturer was barred by laches due to inexcusable delay and prejudice. The court also held that the shipowner's indemnity claim against the
• United States v. Gustav Wahl
  583 F.2d 285· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 14×
  Literal compliance with Rule 3, F.R.Civ.P., by filing a complaint is sufficient to interrupt the running of a federal statute of limitations, even if service of process is delayed.
• Green v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  572 F.2d 628· 8th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the claims asserted in the second lawsuit were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) due to the prior litigation between the same parties concerning the same underlying contractual relationship and alleged breaches.
• Cherry v. Brown-Frazier-Whitney
  548 F.2d 965· D.C. Cir.· 1976-11-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute and in denying the motion to set aside the dismissal.
• Sundstrand Corp. v. Standard Kollsman Indus., Inc.
  488 F.2d 807· 7th Cir.· 1973-10-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in limiting the scope of the complaint and in dismissing Huarisa's counterclaim without a hearing on damages. A new trial is ordered for the fraud claim, and the counterclaim is remanded for a damages assessment.
• The Wealden Corp. & Edward G. Uhl v. Schwey
  482 F.2d 550· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 14×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its factual determinations, its denial of the Rule 41(b) motion, or its rulings on amendments to pleadings and counterclaims.
• Ramsey v. The United Mine Workers OF Am.
  481 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove an antitrust conspiracy, holding that the district judge's findings were not clearly erroneous and that his prior statement regarding a potential conspiracy under a preponderance standard was dict
• Robinson v. The M/V Merc Trader
  477 F.2d 1331· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-07 ·cited 14×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that a ship is not rendered unseaworthy by the transitory negligence of a co-worker causing injury, and the trial court properly dismissed the suit under Rule 41(b).
• Simpson v. United States
  454 F.2d 691· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-04 ·cited 14×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of government negligence to sustain a Federal Tort Claims Act claim.
• Redac Project 6426, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  412 F.2d 1043· 2d Cir.· 1969-06-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs' action with prejudice due to their repeated delays and in issuing a permanent injunction against further actions seeking injunctive relief.
• S. Ariz. York Refrigeration Co. v. The Bush Mfg. Co.
  331 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-28 ·cited 14×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could apply to infer negligence in the manufacture of refrigeration coils, and that the 'imminently dangerous' product exception to the privity requirement extends to property damage claims.
• Merritt M. Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. of Moline
  261 F.2d 121· 8th Cir.· 1958-11-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that repeated, baseless lawsuits can be enjoined, and prior judicial decisions barred further litigation on the dealership agreement.
• Huber v. Am. President Lines
  240 F.2d 778· 2d Cir.· 1957-02-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district judge had the power to dismiss the case on the merits under Rule 41(b) and that the findings of unseaworthiness and negligence were not clearly erroneous.
• Barr v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
  149 F.2d 634· 9th Cir.· 1945-05-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court has the power to adjudicate a jury-waived case on the merits after the plaintiff presents their evidence.
• Barger v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
  130 F.2d 401· D.C. Cir.· 1942-04-20 ·cited 14×
  A court may dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute, either under Rule 41(b) or its inherent power, and such dismissal will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
• Risinger v. Ohio Bureau OF Workers' Comp. & Barbara Riley
  883 F.2d 475· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 13×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court clearly erred in finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of a racially hostile work environment, reversing the dismissal and remanding for further proceedings.
• United States v. State OF Ariz.
  214 F.2d 389· 9th Cir.· 1954-06-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the third-party complaint should be affirmed because Arizona law does not permit one tort-feasor to recover contribution from another for the same injury, absent a contract.
• Harris v. Reginald Callwood & Daisy Callwood
  844 F.2d 1254· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that dismissal under Rule 41(b) was improper without adequate notice to the pro se litigant that failure to appear at a conference could result in dismissal.
• Henderson Duval Houghton v. Osborne
  834 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-14 ·cited 12×
• Williams v. Brown & Root, Inc.
  828 F.2d 325· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 12×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) (Involuntary Dismissal)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to set aside a dismissal for failure to prosecute, as the attorney's inadvertent mistake did not constitute sufficiently unique circumstances for relief.
• Kimmel v. Tex. Commerce Bank
  817 F.2d 39· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-27 ·cited 12×
  A sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, even if the court did not explicitly state it was on the merits.
• Bituminous Constr., Inc. v. Rucker Enters., Inc.
  816 F.2d 965· 4th Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 12×
  A defendant who presents evidence after their Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss is denied waives the right to appeal the denial, and the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed based on the entire record.
• Earley R. Woodmore v. Git-N-Go
  790 F.2d 1497· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-20 ·cited 12×
  A trial court must explain why dismissal is the appropriate sanction when a case is dismissed, especially if refiling is barred by the statute of limitations.
• Zaddack v. A.B. Dick Co.
  773 F.2d 147· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute, nor in conditioning reinstatement on the payment of attorney fees.
• Emmett J. Stebbins v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
  757 F.2d 364· D.C. Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the FOIA claim against the EEOC for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but reversed the dismissal of employment discrimination claims against Nationwide, remanding for further proceedings.
• Hagans v. Clark
  752 F.2d 477· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, and the district court's dismissal was proper.
• Jacquelyn Hill v. K-Mart Corp.
  699 F.2d 776· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove her individual claims of employment discrimination based on race and sex, and also failed to establish a class-wide claim of discrimination.
• Crandall v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  650 F.2d 659· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The Tax Court abused its discretion by dismissing the case for failure to prosecute without considering the appellant's explanation for non-compliance.
• Wilson v. United States
  645 F.2d 728· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge, acting as factfinder in a Rule 41(b) dismissal, was not required to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
• Westchester Corp. & Glenn McMillan Developing Co. v. Peat
  626 F.2d 1212· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a real estate sales contract was not a 'security' under federal or state statutes, and that common law negligence and fraud claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
• Sullivan v. Pac. Indem. Co.
  566 F.2d 444· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-12 ·cited 12×
• Carter v. Telectron, Inc.
  554 F.2d 1369· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-01 ·cited 12×
  A dismissal for failure to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, or 1985 is a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, not on the merits.
• Weston Funding Corp. v. Lafayette Towers, Inc.
  550 F.2d 710· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a prior New Jersey federal court judgment dismissing a real estate broker's claim for lack of a New Jersey license was a bar to a subsequent action in New York federal court on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
• Lemelson v. Kellogg Co.
  440 F.2d 986· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-01 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the misuse claim but vacated the dismissal of the patent infringement claim due to the trial court's failure to make adequate findings of fact.
• Sheaffer v. Warehouse Emps. Union
  408 F.2d 204· D.C. Cir.· 1969-01-23 ·cited 12×
• The Moore Co. OF Sikeston v. SID Richardson Carbon & Gasoline Co.
  347 F.2d 921· 8th Cir.· 1965-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The filing of a complaint in a federal antitrust case is sufficient, without more, to toll the applicable federal statute of limitations.
• Cosentino v. Local 28, Int'l Org. OF Masters, Mates & Pilots, AFL-CIO
  268 F.2d 648· 8th Cir.· 1959-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prior dismissal order, based on the Board's failure to comply with a subpoena and its own procedures, did not operate as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(b).
• Fern v. United States
  213 F.2d 674· 9th Cir.· 1954-05-18 ·cited 12×
• Jefferson Elec. Co. v. Sola Elec. Co.
  122 F.2d 124· 7th Cir.· 1941-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a dismissal of a counterclaim under the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure operates as an adjudication on the merits and is therefore a final, appealable order.
• Enlace Mercantil Internacional, Inc. v. Senior Indus., Inc.
  848 F.2d 315· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that unconditional dismissal with prejudice was an excessive sanction for failure to prosecute when the district court had unduly delayed ruling on a pending motion to quash service of process.
• Lepkowski v. United States Dep't of the Treas.
  804 F.2d 1310· D.C. Cir.· 1986-11-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1) when counsel failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for failing to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss.
• Cominotto v. United States
  802 F.2d 1127· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-17 ·cited 11×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the appellant's FTCA claim was barred by the foreign country exception because the negligent acts, if any, did not have a proximate causal connection to the injury suffered in Thailand, and the appellant's own actions were the sole proximate cause of his injur
• English v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  465 F.2d 43· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while the district court was justified in finding that white employees should be joined under Rule 19(a), its remedy of staying the action was improper; the court should have ordered joinder.
• Kenneth v. Dill
  279 F.2d 145· 3d Cir.· 1960-05-27 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal because the expert medical testimony did not present a vital inconsistency that would neutralize the plaintiff's case.
• Myriam Diehl v. H.J. Heinz Co. & Metromail Corp.
  901 F.2d 73· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the dismissal was improper because the condition for reinstating the case was impossible to fulfill, rendering the subsequent dismissal irrational.
• Chris Berg, Inc. v. Acme Mining Co., Inc.
  893 F.2d 1235· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying an outdated standard for reasonable reliance in a fraud claim, and must reconsider the case under current Florida law.