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

• Haley v. The Kan. City Star
  761 F.2d 489· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the appellant's complaints with prejudice due to the appointed attorney's failure to comply with court orders.
• Crawford v. Ne. Okla. State Univ.
  713 F.2d 586· 10th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of employment discrimination by showing she was qualified and fired under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, and that her replacement was hired.
• Citation Cycle Co., Inc. v. Yorke
  693 F.2d 691· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-23 ·cited 8×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that Citation's appeal was barred by the doctrines of estoppel and laches due to its prolonged delay and inconsistent litigation tactics, affirming the district court's dismissal.
• Pubali Bank v. City Nat'l Bank
  676 F.2d 1326· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the conditions for drawing on the letters of credit were not met because 'freight earned per contract' did not include demurrage, and the bank, acting in its own self-interest with knowledge of falsity, was liable for the wrongful draw.
• Spaulding v. Univ. OF Wash.
  676 F.2d 1232· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-13 ·cited 8×
  The University of Washington should be held liable for the cost of the transcript because it represented that reimbursement would be available if the appellants prevailed on their interlocutory appeal.
• Saylor v. Bastedo
  623 F.2d 230· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action sua sponte for want of prosecution without adequate notice and by denying the motion to substitute the deceased plaintiff's executors.
• Donaldson v. Taylor Prods. Div. OF Tecumseh Prods. Co.
  620 F.2d 155· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination against the union and that the employer articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the discharge, which the plaintiff failed to prove were pretextual.
• Stewart Sec. Corp. v. Guar. Tr. Co.
  597 F.2d 240· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 8×
  A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even if erroneous, has res judicata effect on the jurisdictional issue in a subsequent suit between the same parties.
• The Am. Plan Corp. v. State Loan & Fin. Corp.
  365 F.2d 635· 3d Cir.· 1966-09-07 ·cited 8×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that Delaware law does not require proof of secondary meaning for a name that is arbitrary or fanciful, and that 'American Plan Corporation' is such a name. The court also found sufficient evidence of likelihood of confusion.
• McCLOSKEY & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Cos.
  358 F.2d 544· D.C. Cir.· 1966-03-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that preparatory acts before physical movement of goods can constitute 'unloading' under an insurance policy's 'complete operation' doctrine, and that the accident was causally related to the unloading process.
• Boyd F. Taylor v. Rosalind Cirino
  321 F.2d 279· 6th Cir.· 1963-08-13 ·cited 8×·via Rule 41(B) Motion To Dismiss
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the cases as a matter of law, as the issue of whether the defendant exercised ordinary care in an emergency situation presented a disputed question of fact for the jury.
• Addison v. The Grand Lodge OF the Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists
  318 F.2d 504· 9th Cir.· 1963-06-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that allegations of a conspiracy to expel the plaintiff, which occurred after the effective date of the LMRDA, presented a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on claims related to wrongful expulsion. However, the claim for breach of fiduciary
• Lar (America First) Daly v. Stratton
  304 F.2d 666· 7th Cir.· 1962-06-12 ·cited 8×
  The order denying defendants' motion to vacate the order setting aside a dismissal is not a final, appealable order because the district court had jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal under Rule 60(b) within one year.
• Newport v. Revyuk
  303 F.2d 23· 8th Cir.· 1962-05-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute and comply with discovery orders, and that the appellants, who acquired the plaintiff's claim, could not overcome this dismissal.
• Rollins v. United States
  286 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1961-01-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's prompt completion of service after an initial delay was sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
• Jameson v. DU Comb
  275 F.2d 293· 7th Cir.· 1960-03-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for want of prosecution and that the dismissal was not error.
• Renato Lavino v. Jamison
  230 F.2d 909· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that could explain discrepancies in property seized by the Collector.
• Whitley v. Powell
  159 F.2d 625· 4th Cir.· 1946-12-23 ·cited 8×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) (Involuntary Dismissal)
  The court held that the standard of review for an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) requires considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and that the driver's contributory negligence was imputable to the plaintiff owner-occupant.
• Bowles v. Biberman Bros., Inc.
  152 F.2d 700· 3d Cir.· 1945-09-21 ·cited 8×
• Leaf v. Supreme Court OF the State OF Wis.
  979 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-12 ·cited 7×
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court judgments, but it does not bar claims brought by individuals who were not parties to the state proceedings.
• Robinson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  823 F.2d 793· 4th Cir.· 1987-07-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981, and therefore the district court's judgment for the defendant was correct.
• Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md. v. S. Utils., Inc.
  726 F.2d 692· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 7×
  A district court cannot grant a directed verdict without a trial when summary judgment is inappropriate and genuine issues of material fact remain.
• Colle v. Brazos Cnty.
  981 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was insufficient to confer jurisdiction over all plaintiffs, but that claims against the county and sheriff were adequately pleaded under § 1983.
• Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n v. Dolphin Stadium Corp.
  801 F. Supp. 684· S.D. Fla.· 1992-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that homeowner associations have standing for injunctive relief but not compensatory damages, and denied motions to dismiss based on indispensable parties and Eleventh Amendment immunity, while granting in part motions to strike allegations previously adjudicated.
• Carver v. Bunch
  946 F.2d 451· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaint solely for failure to respond to a motion to dismiss, without considering the merits or the specific requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
• In re Hall v. Hall
  939 F.2d 802· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 6×
  A district court may dismiss a bankruptcy case for improper venue, but such dismissal must be without prejudice, and the court cannot make independent factual findings on bad faith filing, which requires remand to the bankruptcy court.
• Comdyne I v. Corbin
  908 F.2d 1142· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-20 ·cited 6×
  The court should vacate the judgment and remand for a new hearing on the motion for default judgment due to failure to provide direct notice to the litigants as required by circuit precedent.
• Coane v. Ferrara PAN Candy Co.
  898 F.2d 1030· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and imposition of sanctions, finding the attorney's conduct warranted the penalties and that the appeal was frivolous.
• Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  884 F.2d 1186· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the time for filing a Rule 60(b) motion does not commence until a judgment is entered in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, and that civil minutes do not satisfy Rule 58's separate document requirement.
• Childers v. The Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co.
  881 F.2d 1259· 4th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 6×
  A federal court has discretion to dismiss meritless state-law claims during its preemption inquiry, and here, the plaintiff's state claims were plainly without merit, warranting summary judgment.
• Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  871 F.2d 1134· D.C. Cir.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that dismissal of claims for failure to provide a summary plan description against the employer was improper, but dismissal of claims for inadequate claims procedures and against the insurer for failure to provide a summary plan description was warranted. The court
• Gerhard Bass v. Attardi
  868 F.2d 45· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-14 ·cited 6×
  Members of a New Jersey planning board and their agents are absolutely immune from section 1983 actions in their individual capacities; however, suits against them in their official capacities are treated as suits against the board itself, which has no immunity. The court could n
• Nesmith v. Aerospace
  833 F.2d 1489· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the judgment for the defendant on the merits and the award of attorney's fees, finding the plaintiff's Title VII claims were without foundation and the award was within the court's discretion.
• Jeffries v. Potomac Dev. Corp.
  822 F.2d 87· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 6×
  The court is bound by existing D.C. precedent (Kurtz) even if it suspects it will be overruled.
• Omega R. Autry v. N.C. Dep't OF Human Res.
  820 F.2d 1384· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-25 ·cited 6×
  A plaintiff in a Title VII disparate treatment case must present evidence that race was a determining factor in the employment decision, not merely that they belong to a minority group and were not promoted.
• Atlanta Shipping Corp., Inc. v. Chem. Bank
  818 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a plaintiff who invites dismissal by refusing to post a bond may obtain appellate review of prior rulings, but that the district court correctly dismissed the admiralty, fraudulent conveyance, UCC Article 9, and corporate law claims.
• Hall v. Comm'r, Internal Revenue Serv. (Department OF Treasury)
  805 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statutory prohibition against appellate review of district court determinations under 26 U.S.C. § 7429 does not bar appeals from dismissals based solely on procedural grounds, and that automatic dismissal for failure to comply with a local rule requiring a
• S.A. Andes v. Versant Corp.
  788 F.2d 1033· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, but vacated the dismissal with prejudice due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.
• Kickapoo OIL Co. v. Clark OIL & Ref. Corp.
  788 F.2d 11· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony due to late disclosure and did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant due to insufficient evidence.
• Joseph v. ST. Charles Parish Sch. Bd.
  736 F.2d 1036· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a delay in a tenured teacher's due process hearing does not violate constitutional rights if the delay is caused by the teacher or if the teacher suffers no prejudice from the delay.
• Deogracias Ruiz v. Shelby Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  725 F.2d 388· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that dismissal of a Title VII action for filing a request for counsel one day late was improper, and the case should be remanded for a determination of whether the delay was reasonable under equitable principles.
• Schooley v. Kennedy
  712 F.2d 372· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the pro se appellants' case without prejudice for failure to comply with a pretrial order.
• United States Freight Co. v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  716 F.2d 954· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that striking a defendant's answer and entering a default judgment was not an abuse of discretion for repeated discovery violations.
• ACE Novelty Co., Inc. v. Gooding Amusement Co., Inc.
  664 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the action for failure to prosecute without adequate findings or clear indication of plaintiff's obligation.
• Caldwell v. Camp
  594 F.2d 705· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal abstention under the Younger doctrine is appropriate for both equitable and damage claims related to an ongoing state forfeiture proceeding, but the dismissal should be without prejudice.
• Joseph Muller Corp. Zurich v. Societe Anonyme de Gerance ET D'Armement
  508 F.2d 814· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute due to an unexplained and unreasonable delay in service.
• Int'l Video Corp. v. Ampex Corp.
  484 F.2d 634· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are not governed by Rule 41 and that a counterclaim must also be dismissed if the main claim lacks a justiciable controversy.
• United States v. Inter-American Shipping Corp.
  455 F.2d 938· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that dismissal of the action was an abuse of discretion because there was no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.
• Food Basket, Inc. v. Albertson's, Inc.
  416 F.2d 937· 10th Cir.· 1969-10-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence.
• Island Serv. Co., Inc. v. Perez
  309 F.2d 799· 9th Cir.· 1962-11-05 ·cited 6×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal
  The court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the exclusive license agreement and in its findings of fact, requiring reversal and a new trial.