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

• Gerry C. DuBOSE v. State OF Minn.
  893 F.2d 169· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) bars appellate review of earlier interlocutory rulings, regardless of the plaintiff's motives.
• Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  862 F.2d 1381· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that dismissal and sanctions were appropriate due to repeated noncompliance with discovery orders, but remanded for recalculation of monetary sanctions to exclude fees not directly caused by disobedience.
• Cosby v. Ward
  843 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear claims that state administration of unemployment programs violates federal law or the Constitution, even if individual benefit determinations are subject to state review.
• Furth v. Inc. Publ'g Corp.
  823 F.2d 1178· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to prove he was the procuring cause of the advertisements for which he sought commissions, and thus was not entitled to them.
• Brown v. Frey
  806 F.2d 801· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that dismissing a pro se plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with a pretrial order, without a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Rados v. The Celotex Corp.
  809 F.2d 170· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-21 ·cited 10×
  The appeal was dismissed because the notice of appeal was filed prematurely while a post-judgment motion was still pending in the district court.
• Lyles v. United States
  759 F.2d 941· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the District Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were too conclusory and lacked coherence, preventing meaningful appellate review.
• Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd.
  756 F.2d 399· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion without a clear record of egregious delay and findings on lesser sanctions.
• Ford B. Ford v. Sharp
  758 F.2d 1018· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 10×
  The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers with two employees, even if they do not work simultaneously, and a willful violation extends the statute of limitations to three years. Evidence for employees named in the pretrial order but not the complaint can be admitted, but
• SIU v. Johnson
  748 F.2d 238· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-20 ·cited 10×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the university's denial of tenure and promotion to a probationary professor did not violate her constitutional rights to due process or equal protection, even if administrators did not fully defer to peer faculty recommendations.
• Colokathis v. Wentworth-Douglass Hosp.
  693 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for want of prosecution, as the plaintiff's persistent delays and inability to maintain counsel justified the drastic sanction.
• Joplin v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  671 F.2d 1274· 10th Cir.· 1982-03-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the appellant's action sua sponte without sufficient findings or consideration of less severe sanctions.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Ball Corp.
  661 F.2d 531· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that statistical evidence, buttressed by anecdotal proof of discouraged applications, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment regarding promotions and transfers, reversing the district court's dismissal. However, the court affirmed the
• Trujillo v. The State OF Colo.
  649 F.2d 823· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-28 ·cited 10×
  Accepting benefits from a conciliation agreement may waive the right to sue on all claims, but this waiver is only effective if the acceptance was voluntary and knowing.
• Defenders OF Wildlife, Inc. v. Endangered Species Sci. Auth.
  659 F.2d 168· D.C. Cir.· 1981-02-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that parts of the government regulation governing bobcat pelt exports are invalid because the Scientific Authority's guidelines lacked adequate scientific data to determine "no detriment" to the species' survival. The court also reversed the dismissal of certain cl
• Colo. Coal Furnace Distribs., Inc. v. Prill Mfg. Co.
  605 F.2d 499· 10th Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the jury's award of monetary damages for breach of contract but remanded the equitable claims for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Davis v. Williams
  588 F.2d 69· 4th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
• In re Windbrooke Dev. Corp. v. Env't Enters., Inc.
  524 F.2d 461· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition within the statutory four-month period tolls the statute of limitations for preferential transfers, even if summons is not issued immediately thereafter.
• Brown v. Harlan E. O'Leary
  512 F.2d 485· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the sua sponte dismissal of a case for want of prosecution, without evidence of dilatory action and despite the case being ready for trial, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Atl. Corp. v. United States
  311 F.2d 907· 1st Cir.· 1962-12-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case entirely, as it retained jurisdiction over Atlantic's cross-claim against co-defendants, but that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Atlantic's claim against the co-defen
• Janousek v. Wells
  303 F.2d 118· 8th Cir.· 1962-05-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying intervention, denying the motion to add a party defendant, and dismissing the action for failure to prosecute.
• Eduard VON DER Heydt v. Kennedy
  299 F.2d 459· D.C. Cir.· 1962-02-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to comply with discovery orders, as the plaintiff's actions demonstrated bad faith and willful refusal to produce documents and answer interrogatories.
• Charles v. Judge & Dolph, Ltd.
  263 F.2d 864· 7th Cir.· 1959-02-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant failed to provide timely notice of breach of warranty as required by the Illinois Uniform Sales Act, and thus could not claim breach of implied warranty or non-conformity to sample.
• Holcomb v. Holcomb
  209 F.2d 794· D.C. Cir.· 1954-01-07 ·cited 10×
• Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Froehling Supply Co.
  179 F.2d 133· 7th Cir.· 1950-01-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's stipulation regarding the correctness of demurrage charges, if computed under a lawful tariff, coupled with the plaintiff's proof of a lawful tariff, precluded the defendant from later challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding car t
• Mateas v. Harvey
  146 F.2d 989· 9th Cir.· 1945-01-12 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in applying the standard for a directed verdict to a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(b).
• Trans-Orient Marine Corp. v. Star Trading & Marine, Inc.
  925 F.2d 566· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 9×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the district court's dismissal of the breach of contract claim against Star was based on clearly erroneous factual findings, requiring reversal and remand, but affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the Sudan, finding Trans-Orient's forbearance constituted
• Tufaro v. Willie
  756 F. Supp. 556· S.D. Fla.· 1991-01-31 ·cited 9×
  The court granted the defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs, awarding $82,500 in fees and $35,875.85 in costs, totaling $118,375.88.
• Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.
  916 F.2d 759· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-15 ·cited 9×
  The court held that while dismissal of most claims was proper, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the remaining claims without first warning the pro se plaintiff of the potential sanction, but later affirmed the dismissal upon learning a warning was given.
• Shoup v. Bell & Howell Co.
  872 F.2d 1178· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 9×
  A federal court's dismissal of a claim on statute of limitations grounds operates as a judgment on the merits, subject to claim preclusion in a subsequent federal action between the same parties.
• Autorama Corp. v. Joette D. Stewart
  802 F.2d 1284· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-07 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed and that the appellants were not entitled to attorneys' fees and costs because the underlying action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and not decided on the merits, nor was there a showing of bad faith.
• In re Harvard M. JEE v. The Hanil Bank
  799 F.2d 532· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in amending its dismissal order under Rule 60(a) to clarify that the dismissal was intended to be without prejudice.
• Chaiffetz v. Robertson Research Holding, Ltd.
  798 F.2d 731· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) because it failed to make adequate findings of fact and applied flawed reasoning regarding the employer's stated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for dismissal. The court also held
• The Micromanipulator Co., Inc. v. Bough
  779 F.2d 255· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-30 ·cited 9×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the contract's provision regarding sales representatives did not preclude a fiduciary duty, and that using customer lists for a competing entity constituted disclosure to 'others'.
• Henglein v. Informal Plan FOR Plant Shutdown Benefits FOR Salaried Employees
  974 F.2d 391· 3d Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 8×
  A plaintiff's failure to prove the existence of an ERISA plan results in a dismissal on the merits, not a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court must apply the correct standard to determine if an informal plan existed.
• Charla Branch-Hines v. Hebert
  939 F.2d 1311· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-03 ·cited 8×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the exclusion of plaintiff's testimony regarding emotional distress was an abuse of discretion and plain error, and that the jury's award of damages below the stipulated back pay amount was an abuse of discretion.
• Lockhart v. Sullivan
  925 F.2d 214· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for want of prosecution and in denying the motion to reinstate under Rule 59(e) due to the plaintiff's pattern of delay and inconsistent explanations.
• Sanchez v. City OF Santa ANA
  936 F.2d 1027· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly vacated its Rule 54(b) certification as a clerical error, and that the denial of discovery of personnel files was not an abuse of discretion. However, the court reversed summary judgment on promotion claims and remanded retaliation
• Gleason v. McBRIDE
  869 F.2d 688· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of claims related to the Gleason I arrest and the section 1985 claim, affirmed dismissal of most Gleason III claims, but reversed dismissal of Gleason III claims against certain defendants and remanded for further proceedings.
• In re Waller Creek, Ltd. v. Waller Creek, Ltd.
  867 F.2d 228· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-06 ·cited 8×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that separate construction contracts for a hotel and a parking garage, coupled with the parties' treatment of the projects as distinct, operated to "constructively sever" the properties, preventing a mechanic's lien from one project from attaching to the other. The
• Guzowski v. Hartman
  849 F.2d 252· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 8×
  The court should affirm the district court's dismissal of the second action, as the prior dismissal with prejudice bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been brought.
• Mangan v. Caspar Weinberger
  848 F.2d 909· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaints with prejudice for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.
• Reg'l Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland Reclamation Co.
  842 F.2d 150· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-16 ·cited 8×
• Carvel Dillard v. Sec. Pac. Brokers, Inc.
  835 F.2d 607· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 8×
  Claims arising from transactions that occurred before the defendant filed their answer in a prior suit are barred by res judicata, but claims arising after the answer date are not.
• Smith v. United States
  834 F.2d 166· 10th Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the taxpayer's motions to reopen discovery and in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
• Primitivo Ruiz Varela v. Velez
  814 F.2d 821· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing claims without proper notice or a hearing on good cause, and by dismissing for lack of prosecution despite substantial proceedings.
• Coston v. Detroit Edison Co.
  789 F.2d 377· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case due to the plaintiff's counsel's repeated failures to appear and prosecute the action.
• Carter v. United States
  780 F.2d 925· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal order, as dismissal was a sanction of last resort not justified by the circumstances.
• Rabb v. Amatex Corp.
  769 F.2d 996· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a district court's pre-trial order coordinating discovery in complex litigation does not violate federal rules or due process, and sanctions, including evidence preclusion and dismissal, are permissible for willful noncompliance under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37.
• McGLORY v. United States
  763 F.2d 309· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the suit based on a standard of reviewing agency action for arbitrariness or capriciousness, rather than conducting a de novo trial on the factual findings.