Reasonable Diligence

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

• Hackbart v. Holmes
  675 F.2d 1114· 10th Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 33×
  Reckless conduct satisfies the scienter requirement for a Rule 10b-5 violation, and the trial court's findings of recklessness, statute of limitations, and damages were not clearly erroneous.
• State v. Basilio Gomez
  363 So. 2d 624· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-10-31 ·cited 32×
  This case establishes that newly discovered third-party confessions tending to prove a defendant's innocence constitute valid grounds for collateral attack under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, provided the defendant meets the traditional coram nobis requirements and pr
• L. L. Hall Constr. Co. v. The United States
  379 F.2d 559· Ct. Cl.· 1966-12-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant's actions in delaying the plaintiff's work by prioritizing other contractors and failing to provide access to work areas constituted a breach of contract, entitling the plaintiff to delay damages.
• Goldenberg v. Bache & Co.
  270 F.2d 675· 5th Cir.· 1959-09-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of limitations, as she failed to bring suit within one year of discovering the violation or three years of the violation itself.
• Cohen v. Schott
  48 So. 2d 154· Fla.· 1950-10-20 ·cited 31×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the revocation of a liquor license, finding that the licensee had exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to prevent sales to minors. The court emphasized equitable principles and the difficulty of verifying patrons' ages in a bar setting.
• Castigliano v. O'Connor
  911 So. 2d 145· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-06-22 ·cited 30×
  A seller appeals a trial court's grant of specific performance requiring him to close on a condominium sale despite undisclosed fraudulent mortgages placed on the property by his investment advisor. The appellate court reverses, holding that the seller exercised reasonable dilige
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Local 638 ... Local 28 OF the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n
  753 F.2d 1172· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 30×
  The dissent argues that the majority erred in affirming the contempt finding because the union complied with the administrator's directives regarding the apprenticeship program, and the 29% goal should not be treated as an inflexible quota.
• Hanna v. Am. Motors Corp.
  724 F.2d 1300· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding that Hanna failed to mitigate damages by attending school, as his enrollment was for immediate income and he remained willing to work. The court also found AMC failed to prove a reasonable likelihood of comparable employment
• United States v. Fogg
  652 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence of tax evasion and that the prosecutor's comments did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.
• Willis v. L. W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc.
  352 So. 2d 922· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-11-30 ·cited 30×
  Defendant/appellant Willis appeals a summary judgment awarded to plaintiff/appellee Foster Sportswear on an open account debt claim. The trial court denied defendant's motion for rehearing, which was accompanied by a counteraffidavit that would have created a material issue of fa
• The Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Hutton
  488 F.2d 912· 4th Cir.· 1973-12-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the issue of whether the plaintiff acted with reasonable diligence in seeking rescission after discovering grounds for rescission is a question of fact for the jury, not appropriate for summary judgment.
• Lugo v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  750 F.3d 1198· 11th Cir.· 2014-04-24 ·cited 29×
  Daniel Lugo, a Florida death-row inmate, appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and also appealed the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion seeking to vacate that dismissal. The Eleve
• Weis-Patterson Lumber Co. v. King
  131 Fla. 342· Fla.· 1937-11-27 ·cited 29×
  A fire originating on the defendant's lumber mill premises spread to and destroyed the plaintiff's nearby property. The plaintiff recovered a jury verdict based on the defendant's alleged negligence in failing to promptly search for and suppress the fire after discovering smoke,
• Perez v. Universal Eng'g Corp.
  413 So. 2d 75· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-03-30 ·cited 28×
  Employees sued manufacturers for negligence-based injuries from manganese poisoning caused by welding machines installed decades earlier. The court reversed summary judgment dismissing the case on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the constitutional twelve-year bar can
• Young v. Dworkin
  489 F.2d 1277· C.C.P.A.· 1974-01-17 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the board's award of priority to the second inventor, Dworkin, based on the first inventor's (Young's) lack of diligence and conduct amounting to suppression or concealment under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).
• Transp. Mfg. & Equip. Co. v. Fruehauf Trailer Co.
  295 F.2d 223· 8th Cir.· 1961-10-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendants waived their right to rescind the contract due to unreasonable delay in attempting rescission after discovering defects, and that certain expenses incurred by the plaintiff in repossessing and reselling the trailers were properly deductible to m
• Friedman v. Rehm
  43 Fla. 330· Fla.· 1901-06-01 ·cited 28×
  This case concerns the conditions under which a court can set aside a final decree entered after a decree pro confesso, even after the twenty-day period for modification has passed. The court held that such decrees should only be disturbed under strong and special circumstances,
• THE Florida BAR v. Glueck
  985 So. 2d 1052· Fla.· 2008-06-26 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court disbarred attorney Alan Glueck for extensive professional misconduct involving his improper partnership with a non-lawyer in providing immigration and labor law services to eight clients. The Court rejected the referee's three-year suspension recommendat
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Exxon Shipping Co.
  745 F.2d 967· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 27×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding of intentional discrimination and award of backpay, holding that the employer's offer of a different, less desirable position did not toll backpay accrual.
• Emmer v. Brucato
  813 So. 2d 264· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-04-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default judgment, as the appellant failed to meet the required legal standards.
• McPARTLIN v. Comm'r OF the Internal Revenue Serv.
  653 F.2d 1185· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Commissioner's mailing of a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer's old address was not sufficient when the Commissioner had received notice of the taxpayer's new address through various means, and therefore the Tax Court's dismissal for untimeliness was cl
• Swietlowich v. Cnty. OF Bucks & Twp. of Bristol & Harry Merker & Sgt. Stanley Martin & Sgt. Walter Hughes & Patrolman H. J. McDonough
  610 F.2d 1157· 3d Cir.· 1979-12-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury instructions on the statute of limitations were inadequate because they focused on the alteration of police logs rather than the misleading statements made to the plaintiff, requiring a new trial.
• Downing v. Vaine
  228 So. 2d 622· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-12-09 ·cited 26×
  In this legal malpractice case, the Florida District Court of Appeal held that the statute of limitations for a client's action against an attorney begins to run when the client discovers or should discover the attorney's negligence, not when the negligent act itself occurs. The
• Greene v. Mich. Dep't OF Corr.
  315 F.2d 546· 6th Cir.· 1963-04-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without a hearing when the pleadings raised factual issues regarding the parole authorities' diligence in executing a parole violation warrant.
• United States v. McMAHON
  715 F.2d 498· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that appellants' challenges to jury instructions and the denial of a hearing on standing were waived or barred by prior rulings, and that the government's failure to produce psychiatric reports did not violate Brady or the Sixth Amendment.
• Marshall v. Knutson Constr. Co. & Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  566 F.2d 596· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-29 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the Commission's decision to vacate the citation for a serious violation, holding that the Commission reasonably concluded Knutson could not have known of the scaffold's structural defect with reasonable diligence.
• United States v. Lynch
  499 F.2d 1011· D.C. Cir.· 1974-05-07 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in determining the witness was unavailable, and therefore the admission of her prior testimony was proper.
• Mercer v. Mitchell
  908 F.2d 763· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing fines for civil contempt without providing the County with adequate due process, specifically a show-cause order and a hearing.
• Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  453 So. 2d 1187· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-08-14 ·cited 24×
  The Caldwells sought to recover damages exceeding Allstate's policy limits after Allstate denied coverage and refused to defend its insured, James Watts, in a negligence suit. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment on the bad faith claim but reversed and remanded the breac
• Danco Constr. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Sec'y of Labor
  586 F.2d 1243· 8th Cir.· 1978-11-08 ·cited 24×
  An employer cannot avoid liability for a serious OSHA violation by claiming lack of knowledge if the violation was preventable through reasonable diligence, including adequate training and supervision.
• Nat'l Fam. Ins. Co. v. Exch. Nat'l Bank OF Chicago
  474 F.2d 237· 7th Cir.· 1973-02-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of limitations because the plaintiff knew or should have known of its cause of action more than five years prior to filing suit, and any right to a jury trial on the limitations issue was waived.
• Peoples Realty Co. v. S. Colonization Co.
  78 Fla. 628· Fla.· 1919-12-17 ·cited 24×
  Peoples Realty Company appealed from an order setting aside a decree pro confesso and a final decree entered against it, approximately sixty days after entry. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order, holding that the party appealing an order reopening a final d
• Turner v. Jones
  67 Fla. 121· Fla.· 1914-02-11 ·cited 24×
  This case concerns whether a circuit judge abused their discretion by vacating a final decree entered against defendants who claimed ignorance of the case status and a meritorious defense. The appellate court affirmed the judge's decision to vacate the decree, emphasizing the imp
• Grammer v. Grammer
  80 So. 2d 457· Fla.· 1955-05-11 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision to vacate a divorce decree on grounds of fraud in constructive service. The court held that the husband made sufficient diligent search and inquiry to locate his estranged wife before obtaining the divorce, and that the
• Maggio v. Gerard Freezer & ICE Co.
  824 F.2d 123· 1st Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal and state claims were barred by the statute of limitations because he failed to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering the alleged fraud, despite having sufficient "storm warnings" of potential wrongdoing.
• United Protective Workers OF Am. v. Ford Motor Co.
  223 F.2d 49· 7th Cir.· 1955-05-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that social security and annuity payments received by a wrongfully retired employee should be deducted from contract damages to prevent the employee from being placed in a better position than if the contract had been performed, distinguishing this from tort law pr
• Hercules Co., Inc. v. The Brigadier Gen. Absolom Baird
  214 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1954-06-17 ·cited 21×
  A contract to repair a vessel and ready her for a voyage is maritime and supports admiralty jurisdiction, and a recorded mortgage does not defeat a repairman's lien unless it is a 'preferred mortgage' under the Ship Mortgage Act.
• THE Florida BAR v. Morrison
  669 So. 2d 1040· Fla.· 1996-03-14 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court disciplined attorney Robert B. Morrison, Jr. for ethical violations involving neglect of two client matters, failure to communicate with clients, and failure to respond to Bar inquiries. The Court suspended Morrison from practice for one year, conditione
• Elbert Brown and Edith Brown v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc.
  441 So. 2d 1098· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-11-01 ·cited 20×
  The trial court granted summary judgment for asbestos manufacturers based on the statute of limitations, finding that the Browns' action filed in 1979 was barred by the four-year limitations period. The appellate court reversed, holding that a genuine factual issue existed about
• DE Witt v. United States
  593 F.2d 276· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-26 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision, finding the claim barred by the statute of limitations.
• Chappell v. Peyton J. Watson
  119 Fla. 711· Fla.· 1935-04-17 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to overrule a motion to dismiss a suit seeking to cancel the satisfaction of a mortgage. The court found the bill of complaint sufficiently alleged mutual mistake and did not demonstrate accord and satisfaction or preclu
• Strickland v. Jewell
  80 Fla. 221· Fla.· 1920-07-10 ·cited 20×
  In a mortgage foreclosure action, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of a decree pro confesso against defendants who failed to sign their answer, holding that defendants did not demonstrate sufficient reasonable diligence to justify setting aside the defau
• Cayson v. State
  139 So. 2d 719· Fla. 1st DCA· 1962-04-12 ·cited 19×
  Jesse and Doyle Cayson, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought a writ of error coram nobis based on allegations that their trial attorney had withheld information about a former client who allegedly confessed to the murder. The Florida District Court of Ap
• Jackson v. George A. Georgopolous, M.D.
  552 So. 2d 215· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-10-04 ·cited 18×
  In this medical malpractice case arising from a patient's death following surgery, the court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant based on the two-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff failed to timely file suit and could not demonstrate fraudulent concealment to to
• Gregory v. Honeywell, Inc.
  835 F.2d 181· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised pendent jurisdiction and did not err in dismissing the suit for failure to comply with the statute of limitations.
• Urland v. Merrell-Dow Pharms., Inc.
  822 F.2d 1268· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that under Pennsylvania law, the statute of limitations is tolled by fraudulent concealment until the plaintiff knew or, with reasonable diligence, should have known of the injury and its cause, and that a minor's tolling statute does not revive a claim already bar
• Mosesian v. Peat
  727 F.2d 873· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a jury's finding that a securities fraud action was timely filed should be reinstated, as the evidence did not permit a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as a matter of law. However, the court affirmed a directed verdict against the bankruptcy trustees due
• Giordano v. McCARTNEY
  385 F.2d 154· 3d Cir.· 1967-10-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
• Tampa Ship Repair & DRY Dock Co., Inc. v. Esso Exp. Corp.
  237 F.2d 506· 5th Cir.· 1956-10-24 ·cited 18×
  A supplier who furnishes necessaries to a vessel chartered under a demise charter is charged with knowledge of the charter's terms, including any prohibition on creating maritime liens, if they could have ascertained those terms through reasonable diligence.
• Cyclone Drilling, Inc. v. Kelley
  769 F.2d 662· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment was premature because a material issue of fact remained regarding the IRS's "last known address" determination and the taxpayer was denied a full opportunity for discovery.