Reasonable Diligence

388 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. Knight
  98 Fla. 1004· Fla.· 1929-11-22 ·cited 243×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a decree pro confesso entered against two corporate defendants for failing to file their answer with corporate seals, holding that the defendants demonstrated reasonable diligence and a meritorious defense (waiver of the mortgagee's acceleration
• Martin v. Secretary Walter A. McNEIL
  633 F.3d 1257· 11th Cir.· 2011-02-23 ·cited 132×
  Pablo San Martin, a Florida death row inmate, appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). San Martin argued that a two-week delay in receiving actual notice of the Supreme Court's den
• Campbell v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.
  306 So. 2d 525· Fla.· 1974-12-18 ·cited 103×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the District Court of Appeal and reinstated a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages against an insurance company for bad faith failure to settle a claim within policy limits, holding that bad faith is ordinarily a jury question
• The Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Hutton
  422 F.2d 1124· 4th Cir.· 1970-02-18 ·cited 99×
  Genuine issues of material fact regarding the statute of limitations preclude summary judgment, but the lower court correctly granted summary judgment on other issues, including that the production payment was a security and that Section 12(2) was violated.
• Elbel v. United States
  364 F.2d 127· 10th Cir.· 1966-07-14 ·cited 98×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of fraudulent intent and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Artin Balan v. The Wekiwa Ranch
  97 Fla. 180· Fla.· 1929-02-13 ·cited 80×
  This case involves a dispute over jurisdiction and constructive service of process in a land dispute. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a pro confesso decree, holding that the bill of complaint lacked grounds for equitable relief and clarifying the alternative nature of statutor
• Wheeler v. United States
  382 F.2d 998· 10th Cir.· 1967-09-18 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding jury instructions, admission of evidence, or venue.
• Marks v. Prattco, Inc.
  607 F.2d 1153· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 75×
  The court affirmed the finding of employment discrimination and the award of attorney's fees, but remanded for recalculation of back pay. The court also affirmed the amendment of the complaint to substitute the correct party.
• Hillard H. Aldrich and Amy Aldrich v. McCULLOCH Props., Inc.
  627 F.2d 1036· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-05 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim regarding federal securities law violations, but affirmed the dismissal of claims under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA) due to its st
• Fla. Power Corp. v. City OF Tallahassee
  154 Fla. 638· Fla.· 1944-06-27 ·cited 74×
  Florida Power Corporation contracted with the City of Tallahassee to supply electricity continuously for 20 years. When a hurricane on October 7, 1941 caused a 10.2-hour power outage, the city deducted liquidated damages of $2,659.83 from payments owed. The court held that the hu
• Cook v. Avien, Inc.
  573 F.2d 685· 1st Cir.· 1978-03-28 ·cited 72×
  Claims under § 12(1) and § 12(2) of the 1933 Act are barred by the statute of limitations. The § 10(b) claim against Pritchard is remanded for further determination on the statute of limitations.
• Rasimas v. Mich. Dep't OF Mental Health
  714 F.2d 614· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 71×
  The majority agreed that the judgment must be vacated and remanded due to a subsequent Supreme Court decision impacting the jurisdictional prerequisite for filing charges with the EEOC. However, the dissenting judge argued the majority improperly reversed the district court inste
• Grover Spurgeon King v. United States
  402 F.2d 289· 10th Cir.· 1968-10-22 ·cited 70×
  The court held that evidence of a separate forged check was admissible to show intent and guilty knowledge, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a bill of particulars or a new trial.
• Jules J. Exnicious v. United States
  563 F.2d 418· 10th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 68×
  The court held that summary judgment for the government was improper because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the alleged malpractice, making the claim potentially timely.
• Thorburn Kennedy v. Josephthal & Co., Inc.
  814 F.2d 798· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 59×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding the plaintiffs' claims time-barred, lacking justifiable reliance, and that the security was properly exempted from registration.
• Klinger v. Milton Holding Co.
  136 Fla. 50· Fla.· 1938-03-10 ·cited 58×
  This case involves a bill of review challenging a foreclosure decree based on defective constructive service by publication. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal, holding that service by publication was insufficient because the affiant failed to exercise
• Smetal Corp. v. W. Lake Inv. Co.
  126 Fla. 595· Fla.· 1936-04-16 ·cited 58×
  This case involves an appeal from a dismissal of a bill seeking to set aside a tax lien foreclosure decree. The Florida Supreme Court held that while most of appellant's claims were barred by prior rulings on a motion to vacate, the allegation concerning inadequate inquiry regard
• Reilly v. United States
  513 F.2d 147· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-31 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations because she discovered, or should have discovered, the alleged malpractice more than two years before filing her claim.
• Brennan v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Underhill Constr. Corp.
  513 F.2d 1032· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-10 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a violation of OSHA standards does not require proof of direct employee exposure to the hazard, only that the hazard existed and was accessible to employees.
• Brennan v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Hanovia Lamp Div.
  502 F.2d 946· 3d Cir.· 1974-08-14 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the Commission failed to address the Secretary's argument regarding the feasibility of a two-person rule for high voltage testing, requiring remand for the Commission to consider this issue in the first instance.
• McDONNELL v. Estelle
  666 F.2d 246· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-25 ·cited 53×
  A district court's dismissal of a habeas corpus petition under Rule 9(a) based on laches requires the state to prove prejudice caused by the petitioner's delay, and the petitioner must be given proper notice that the court is considering summary judgment.
• Powell v. Ward
  643 F.2d 924· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-04 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court properly found the defendant in civil contempt for violating a prior injunction regarding inmate disciplinary procedures and appropriately ordered remedies, but modified the period for expungement of records.
• United States v. Murrell Bedford
  519 F.2d 650· 3d Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 52×
  The majority opinion is not provided, but the dissenting judge believes the search warrant was stale due to an eight-day delay in execution, rendering the seized narcotics inadmissible.
• Brown v. United States
  353 F.2d 578· 9th Cir.· 1965-11-16 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the appellants' claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act were barred by the two-year limitations period because the parents discovered, or should have discovered, the alleged malpractice more than two years before filing suit.
• Accu-Namics, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  515 F.2d 828· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-11 ·cited 50×
  The court held that even if the Secretary of Labor committed procedural violations during an OSHA inspection, these violations do not require vacating a citation if the employer shows no prejudice, and the Commission can proceed to the merits if substantial evidence supports the
• Armstrong v. Clovis McALPIN
  699 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred most claims because shareholders knew or should have known of the fraud with reasonable diligence, and that a breach of fiduciary duty alone does not violate federal securities laws.
• Moore v. Telfon Commc'ns Corp.
  589 F.2d 959· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-09 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the counterclaim and denial of the venue motion, affirmed the denial of attorney's fees, and affirmed the jury verdict in the privacy action, but remanded the disposition of the cross-complaint due to confusion.
• Webb v. State
  336 So. 2d 416· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-07-30 ·cited 47×
  Jerry Webb was convicted of marijuana sale based on undercover officer Carnahan's testimony. The court reversed, holding that Webb was improperly prevented from presenting evidence of police bias stemming from a prior civil suit, and that the trial court erred in denying his moti
• Brennan v. Butler Lime & Cement Co. & Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  520 F.2d 1011· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the Commission failed to make a necessary finding of fact regarding the adequacy of the employer's safety program, and therefore, the decision is set aside and remanded.
• Jackson v. The Citizens Bank & Tr. Co.
  53 Fla. 265· Fla.· 1907-01-01 ·cited 46×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the Citizens Bank and Trust Company, rejecting a sheriff's challenge to the validity of a sale of goods by an insolvent debtor to a creditor. The case establishes important principles regarding fraudulent transfers: cred
• Pfeil v. Rogers
  757 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-08 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, disregarding late-filed materials, and granting summary judgment based on the evidence presented. However, it erred in disallowing affidavits solely for lack of a notarial seal and in re
• Toal v. United States
  438 F.2d 222· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-10 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act was not barred by the statute of limitations because the claim had not yet accrued when filed.
• Tyminski v. United States
  481 F.2d 257· 3d Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act statute of limitations did not bar the claim, as the claimant did not discover the malpractice within the limitations period. The court also held that damages for gratuitous nursing services should be allowed.
• Dunlop v. Rockwell Int'l (formerly N. Am. Rockwell Corp.) & the Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  540 F.2d 1283· 6th Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Commission's decision to vacate the citation and abatement order was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion because it ignored significant employee testimony regarding dust conditions and system malfunctions.
• Jordan v. United States
  503 F.2d 620· 6th Cir.· 1974-09-24 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the plaintiff's malpractice claim did not accrue in 1969, as the plaintiff did not discover, nor should he have reasonably discovered, that his injury was the result of malpractice until June 7, 1971.
• Engelhard Indus., Inc. v. Research Instrumental Corp.
  324 F.2d 347· 9th Cir.· 1963-10-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that file wrapper estoppel did not preclude the patent holder from asserting infringement of claims covering a screen cathode, but affirmed summary judgment on infringement because the accused device lacked a key feature. The court reversed summary judgment on the
• Horne Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & John T. Dunlop
  528 F.2d 564· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-26 ·cited 38×
  An employer is not liable for unforeseeable and unpreventable employee misconduct that violates OSHA regulations, as this would impose strict liability contrary to the Act's intent.
• Dale v. Rosenfeld
  229 F.2d 855· 2d Cir.· 1956-02-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the prospectus was misleading regarding the underwriter's commitment, and the plaintiff's action was timely.
• Meyers v. Shearn Moody, Jr.
  693 F.2d 1196· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-23 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the receiver had standing to sue, the statute of limitations was tolled by Moody's concealment of fraud, and equitable estoppel did not bar the action.
• Treadway Cos., Inc. v. Care Corp.
  638 F.2d 357· 2d Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 37×
• Fote v. Reitano
  46 So. 2d 891· Fla.· 1950-05-26 ·cited 37×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's rescission of a business sale contract. The court found that the buyers failed to prove they justifiably relied on the seller's alleged misrepresentations about the business's profits, a necessary element for rescission.
• City OF Aurora v. Bechtel Corp.
  599 F.2d 382· 10th Cir.· 1979-05-29 ·cited 36×
  In an action for professional malpractice against an engineer or architect under the six-year statute of limitations, the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows, or should know, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, all material facts essential to show the elements o
• Sizzler Family Steak Houses v. W. Sizzlin Steak House, Inc.
  793 F.2d 1529· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the contempt order and sanctions against Western, finding them compensatory and not an abuse of discretion, but dismissed Sizzler's cross-appeal regarding the amount of sanctions.
• Serzysko v. The Chase Manhattan Bank
  461 F.2d 699· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-22 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of fraud on the court and violations of the Civil Rights Act were insufficient to set aside a prior judgment or state a new claim.
• Blue v. Blue
  66 So. 2d 228· Fla.· 1953-06-23 ·cited 35×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a divorce decree, remanding the case to allow the wife to present newly discovered evidence of the husband's alleged infidelity, which could impact his fitness for child custody and his entitlement to the divorce.
• Kramas v. Sec. GAS & OIL Inc.
  672 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1982-03-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions on materiality for federal securities claims require reversal, but affirmed the dismissal of other claims and the judgment for breach of fiduciary duty.
• United States v. Teodoro Ariza-Ibarra
  651 F.2d 2· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the government's misconduct in failing to disclose information about an informant was so improper as to warrant dismissal of the indictment in the exercise of supervisory powers.
• Todosio Casias and Dorothy Casias v. United States
  532 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellant's medical malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations because it was not filed within two years of when the claimant discovered, or should have discovered, the alleged malpractice.
• Brennan v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Republic Creosoting Co.
  501 F.2d 1196· 7th Cir.· 1974-08-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the employer did not violate the Occupational Safety and Health Act's general duty clause regarding the untrained employee's accident, nor did it violate the Act by failing to barricade tie piles, as the Commission's findings were supported by substantial evid
• United States v. Moore
  166 F.2d 102· 7th Cir.· 1948-02-27 ·cited 34×
  A motion to vacate a judgment requires a showing that a retrial would result in a different judgment, and unreasonable delay in seeking such relief bars it.