Inexcusable Delay

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

• Akers v. State Marine Lines, Inc.
  344 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-13 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed and that summary judgment was improperly granted because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding prejudice from the delay.
• Gruca v. United States Steel Corp.
  495 F.2d 1252· 3d Cir.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a veteran's claim for equitable relief under the Military Selective Service Act is subject to the doctrine of laches, and the veteran's significant delay in pursuing his claim, coupled with prejudice to the employer, barred the claim.
• Long v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Warden, Fla. State Prison, John Does, as designee of Barry Reddish, and/or Mark S. Inch
  924 F.3d 1171· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-22 ·cited 32×
• Armco, Inc. v. Armco Burglar Alarm Co., Inc.
  693 F.2d 1155· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of likelihood of confusion was not clearly erroneous, but erred in its application of the laches defense by using an incorrect starting date for the delay.
• Potash Co. of Am. v. Int'l Minerals & Chem. Corp.
  213 F.2d 153· 10th Cir.· 1954-05-15 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the plaintiff's patent infringement claim was barred by laches due to inexcusable delay and resulting prejudice to the defendant, affirming the trial court's denial of relief.
• Gifford v. The Atchison
  685 F.2d 1149· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that laches is an equitable defense that requires factual findings of inexcusable delay and prejudice, and cannot be decided as a matter of law on an inadequate record, particularly concerning backpay claims.
• Deering v. The United States
  620 F.2d 242· Ct. Cl.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 26×
  The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 suspends statutes of limitations for military personnel but does not suspend the equitable doctrine of laches. Therefore, laches can bar a military pay claim even if filed within the statutory period.
• Jeffries v. Chicago Transit Auth.
  770 F.2d 676· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the plaintiff's employment discrimination claim was barred by laches due to his inexcusable delay and the resulting prejudice to the defendant.
• Lingenfelter v. Keystone Consol. Indus., Inc.
  691 F.2d 339· 7th Cir.· 1982-10-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim under the Veteran's Reemployment Rights Act was barred by laches due to inexcusable delay and prejudice to the defendant.
• Garcia v. Guerra
  738 So. 2d 459· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-07-28 ·cited 16×
  Mercedes Garcia appeals from a trial court order denying her claim for child support arrearages and awarding attorney's fees to her ex-husband Hector Guerra. The court affirmed the dismissal of the arrearages claim based on laches but reversed the attorney's fees award.
• Citizens & Landowners Against THE Miles City/NEW Underwood Powerline v. Sec'y, United States Dep't OF Energy
  683 F.2d 1171· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the landowners' claims were barred by laches due to unreasonable delay and prejudice, and that the federal agency was not required to obtain a state permit for the powerline construction under the Supremacy Clause.
• 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
• Porter v. Beaumont Enter. & Journal
  743 F.2d 269· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Title VII race discrimination suit with prejudice due to the plaintiff's attorney's inexcusable delay and improper service of process.
• Maloney-Crawford Tank Corp. v. Rocky Mountain Natural GAS Co., Inc.
  494 F.2d 401· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that laches did not bar the patent infringement action because there was no inexcusable delay or prejudice to the defendant.
• Rizzo v. United States
  821 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that dismissal of a Section 2255 motion based on laches was improper without evidence of prejudice or notice to the movant, and that a sentence based on uncounselled juvenile adjudications may be unconstitutional.
• Pepper v. The United States
  794 F.2d 1571· Fed. Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's claims for back pay and reinstatement were barred by the equitable doctrine of laches due to inexcusable delay and prejudice to the government.
• The Cleveland Newspaper Guild v. The Plain Dealer Publ'g Co.
  839 F.2d 1147· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-11 ·cited 7×
• Byrne v. Buffalo Creek R.R. Co. & John J. Hayes
  765 F.2d 364· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-18 ·cited 6×
  The majority effectively overturned prior precedent by creating an exception to the rule that a six-month statute of limitations applies retroactively to wrongful discharge/failure to represent claims.
• Phillips v. Springfield Ins. Co.
  418 F.2d 236· 5th Cir.· 1969-11-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the dismissal of the personal injury suit due to laches was proper because the plaintiff's delay in filing suit was inexcusable and prejudiced the defendant insurer.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Phillips Colleges, Inc.
  984 F. Supp. 1464· M.D. Fla.· 1997-08-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the EEOC's delay in filing suit was inexcusable but did not prejudice the defendants because they received prompt notice, and that the EEOC made sufficient good faith efforts to conciliate. The court also granted the EEOC's motion to join a new party, finding
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc.
  690 F. Supp. 995· M.D. Fla.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while defendant's destruction of records was prejudicial, a default judgment was too severe a sanction; however, the court granted summary judgment for the EEOC on the laches defense, finding neither inexcusable delay nor prejudice to the defendant.
• Olympia Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  712 F.2d 74· 4th Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a patent holder's unreasonable delay and conduct, which led the alleged infringer to believe its business would be unmolested, can support a finding of estoppel, justifying dismissal of the entire infringement action, even if labeled as laches.
• Daingerfield Island Protective Soc'y v. Lujan
  920 F.2d 32· D.C. Cir.· 1990-11-30
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing non-NEPA claims as moot and in applying the doctrine of laches to bar challenges to the 1970 Exchange Agreement.