Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 41(B) Dismissal

179 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Napier v. Thirty OR More Unidentified Federal Agents
  855 F.2d 1080· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 18×
  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
• Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales S.A. v. Brownell
  225 F.2d 532· D.C. Cir.· 1955-06-30 ·cited 18×
  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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Blankenship v. Herzfeld
  661 F.2d 840· 10th Cir.· 1981-10-09 ·cited 16×
  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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Toyota Landscape Co., Inc. v. Bldg. Material & Dump Truck Drivers Local 420
  726 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 14×
  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.
• 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.
• Robinson v. The M/V Merc Trader
  477 F.2d 1331· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-07 ·cited 14×
  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×
  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×
  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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Cominotto v. United States
  802 F.2d 1127· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-17 ·cited 11×
  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
• 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.
• 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.
• SIU v. Johnson
  748 F.2d 238· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-20 ·cited 10×
  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.
• Trans-Orient Marine Corp. v. Star Trading & Marine, Inc.
  925 F.2d 566· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 9×
  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
• In re Waller Creek, Ltd. v. Waller Creek, Ltd.
  867 F.2d 228· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-06 ·cited 8×
  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
• 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.
• Citation Cycle Co., Inc. v. Yorke
  693 F.2d 691· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-23 ·cited 8×
  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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Island Serv. Co., Inc. v. Perez
  309 F.2d 799· 9th Cir.· 1962-11-05 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Evans v. Davie Truckers, Inc.
  769 F.2d 1012· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII by showing protected activity, adverse employment action, and a causal connection, and thus the case should not have been dismissed.
• Judkins v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
  723 F.2d 818· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 5×
  The court held that filing a right-to-sue letter and requesting counsel satisfies the statutory time limit for bringing a Title VII action, and dismissal for a minor delay in filing a more exact complaint is an abuse of discretion.
• Govas v. Chalmers
  965 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 4×
  A district court has the discretion to dismiss a case for discovery violations when a party demonstrates a pattern of dilatory and evasive tactics and willfully persists in such tactics despite explicit warnings and court orders.
• Roth v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp.
  965 F.2d 862· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Roth was an employee of Agronomics, not Hospital Supply, for ERISA purposes, and therefore lacked standing to sue Hospital Supply under ERISA.
• Ackley v. Western Conference OF Teamsters
  958 F.2d 1463· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-21 ·cited 4×
  The LMRDA does not require union leaders to fully disclose all terms of a collective bargaining agreement before ratification, nor does it impose minimum disclosure requirements when no statutorily created right to vote exists.
• The Indep. Fed'n OF Flight Attendants v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  878 F.2d 254· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the flight attendants' claims, finding no clear error in the factual determinations made after trial.
• Herbert v. Saffell
  877 F.2d 267· 4th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case under Rule 41(b), but that the 'as is' clause did not bar fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against the sellers. Claims against the realtors were properly dismissed.
• Manis v. Sterling
  862 F.2d 679· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the motion for an out-of-time appeal by two plaintiffs was denied due to untimeliness, and the dismissal of the third plaintiff's complaint was affirmed because he failed to plead conspiracy with sufficient specificity.
• Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp.
  849 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to maintain reasonable secrecy for his invention, thus barring claims under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and unjust enrichment. The court remanded the sanctions issue for further clarification.
• Tenneco Resins, Inc. v. Reeves Bros., Inc.
  752 F.2d 630· Fed. Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tenneco's repeated motions to amend its pleadings to assert patent invalidity due to undue delay and prejudice to the opposing party.
• Indep. GAS & OIL Producers, Inc. v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal.
  669 F.2d 624· 10th Cir.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the new oil and gas lease was a renewal of the original lease, and thus Union's overriding royalty interest attached to it. The court also held that the overriding royalty interest was not barred by the rule against perpetuities.
• Royal Indem. Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp.
  516 F.2d 1067· 9th Cir.· 1975-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Royal's reliance on Kaiser's alleged misrepresentations was not justifiable, and the misrepresentations were not material, thus affirming the dismissal of the fraud and reformation claims. The court also affirmed the denial of additional premium claims and the
• Zaroff v. Talley R. Holmes
  379 F.2d 875· D.C. Cir.· 1967-05-18 ·cited 4×
  A dismissal for failure to appear at a pretrial conference under Local Rule 12, which does not expressly state it is with prejudice, should not be treated as res judicata of the merits.
• Klein v. Burns Mfg. Co., Inc.
  245 F.2d 269· 2d Cir.· 1957-05-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the design patent was invalid because the design lacked originality and aesthetic appeal, and therefore, the evidence should not have been submitted to the jury.
• Frese v. Hayes
  240 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-09 ·cited 4×
  A purchaser cannot obtain rescission of an executed real estate transaction due to an encroachment when they failed to exercise reasonable diligence, such as obtaining a survey after being advised to do so by their own counsel, absent actual fraud.