Reasonable Diligence

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

• Equitable Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. LEE
  310 F.2d 262· 9th Cir.· 1962-11-14 ·cited 4×
  A corporation can be liable for punitive damages for fraud committed by its agents acting within the scope of their employment, even if the specific fraudulent acts were not authorized or ratified by high-level officers. Plaintiffs can sue for damages for fraud even if they made
• Mrs. Estelle Byrd and J. N. Byrd, Jr. v. Mrs. Willie Louis Bates
  243 F.2d 670· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the determination of whether an action was 'commenced and prosecuted' under Texas law, for statute of limitations purposes, involves factual questions of reasonable diligence and bona fide intent, which cannot be resolved by summary judgment.
• Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Zannaras
  229 F.2d 920· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Bagdad's claims for fraud and forfeiture were barred by laches and limitations, affirming the lower court's judgment.
• Risser v. Hirshhorn
  199 F.2d 917· 2d Cir.· 1952-11-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the broker presented sufficient evidence to go to the jury on her claims against both the seller and the buyer, and the trial court erred in dismissing these claims.
• Sutton v. Zewadski
  70 Fla. 379· Fla.· 1915-11-19 ·cited 4×
  In this equity case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a decree pro confesso and final judgment against a defendant who failed to respond to an amended bill of complaint after his motion to strike the amended bill was denied. The court held that the defendant's inaction and lack
• Howard v. Gualt
  259 So. 3d 119· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-10-31 ·cited 3×
  A guarantor appeals a trial court's denial of his motion to vacate a default judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action. The guarantor argues the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in attempting personal service before resorting to service by publication. The appellate cou
• Gutierrez v. Yochim
  23 So. 3d 1221· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-11-13 ·cited 3×
  Maria Gutierrez appeals summary judgment in favor of her insurer, Dairyland Insurance Company, in a bad faith claim arising from Dairyland's allegedly delayed settlement of a claim by Mr. Yochim, who was severely injured in an accident caused by Gutierrez's van. The court reverse
• Levin v. Ira Lang
  933 So. 2d 107· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-05-31 ·cited 3×
  The Levins sold commercial property to Lang but discovered an Ethan Allen judgment lien on title. After exhausting reasonable efforts to cure the defect, they notified Lang in writing that he must choose to accept title "as is" or cancel the contract. The trial court ordered spec
• Dirk Randall LEE v. State
  813 So. 2d 275· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-04-12 ·cited 3×
  Dirk Randall Lee seeks a belated appeal of his 1998 guilty plea convictions for carjacking with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery, claiming he was not advised of his appellate rights in violation of Florida procedural rules. The court finds that because Lee alleges he was un
• Gen. Bedding Corp. v. Echevarria
  947 F.2d 1395· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-28 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the issuance of a patent naming only one co-inventor does not, as a matter of law, provide constructive notice of fraud to a company that employed the unlisted co-inventor, creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the statute of limitations.
• MacKay v. Bacon
  155 Fla. 577· Fla.· 1945-02-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the foreclosure decree because the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining the defendant's address for constructive service.
• THE Florida BAR v. Costell Walton, Jr.
  952 So. 2d 510· Fla.· 2006-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a referee's disciplinary recommendation against attorney Costell Walton Jr. for misconduct arising from his representation of plaintiffs in a civil case. The Court approved a 91-day suspension but rejected the referee's recommendations for resti
• Pac. Harbor Cap., Inc. v. Barnett Bank, N.A.
  252 F.3d 1246· 11th Cir.· 2001-05-30 ·cited 2×
  Pacific Harbor Capital sued Barnett Bank for RICO violations arising from a loan transaction where Barnett allegedly made false certifications as disbursing agent and conspired with the borrower. The court held that PHC's RICO claim was barred by the statute of limitations becaus
• Florida BAR v. Arango
  720 So. 2d 248· Fla.· 1998-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a disciplinary case against attorney Julio V. Arango, who was found to have engaged in a pattern of neglect in representing a personal injury client and submitted false or fabricated evidence during the disciplinary proceeding. The Court upheld
• Powell v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  958 F.2d 53· 4th Cir.· 1992-03-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the IRS notice of deficiency was insufficient because it was not mailed to the taxpayer's last known address and the IRS failed to exercise reasonable diligence. The Tax Court erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
• Hiram H. Hoelzer v. The City OF Stamford
  933 F.2d 1131· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The court applies New York law, considering the original owner's diligence in locating stolen art under the doctrine of laches, not the statute of limitations.
• Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas S.A. v. United States
  730 F.2d 153· 4th Cir.· 1984-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The United States may not limit its liability under 46 U.S.C. § 183(a) because it had privity and knowledge of the conditions that caused the collision.
• RAM Petroleums, Inc. v. Andrus
  658 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in reversing the Board of Land Appeals' decision, finding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reinstatement of the oil and gas leases.
• Butler Lime & Cement Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  658 F.2d 544· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission failed to follow the mandate of this court on remand by not adequately developing the record regarding the possibility of arcing and the adequacy of the employer's safety program in light of that possibility
• Martin Painting & Coating Co. v. Marshall
  629 F.2d 437· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's finding of a serious violation was supported by substantial evidence, affirming the citation.
• Naber v. Cricchi
  567 F.2d 382· C.C.P.A.· 1977-12-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that work on general deposition techniques and uncorroborated time card charges did not satisfy the reasonable diligence requirement for patent priority.
• Home Owners Ins. Co. v. Charles Sales Corp. OF Orlando
  222 So. 2d 37· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-04-01 ·cited 2×
  Home Owners Insurance Company appeals a judgment against it on a surety bond guaranteeing payment for materials furnished by Charles Sales Corp. to the principal contractor. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the surety's liability was not discharged by the principal's
• Sampson Constr. Co., Inc. v. Farmers Coop. Elevator Co.
  382 F.2d 645· 10th Cir.· 1967-08-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the implied warranty of fitness in a construction contract included a prospective warranty that the structure would last a reasonable time, and the cause of action for breach did not accrue until the defects became known upon collapse, thus the action was not
• D'Amico v. Fuji Koike
  347 F.2d 867· C.C.P.A.· 1965-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient record evidence to establish reasonable diligence in prosecuting their patent application during the critical period, despite arguments for a rule of reason.
• Dist. OF Columbia v. McNEILL
  344 F.2d 195· D.C. Cir.· 1965-02-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge correctly perceived factual issues regarding notice and contributory negligence, and thus did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the District.
• Bowe v. Butler
  133 So. 2d 347· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-09-29 ·cited 2×
  Plaintiff Bowe sued a railroad for personal injuries when railroad employees kicked box cars into a car where he was working, causing injury. The trial judge expressed serious doubts about the railroad's due care but reserved ruling on a directed verdict motion, and the jury retu
• Fitzgerald v. Arbib
  268 F.2d 763· C.C.P.A.· 1959-07-16 ·cited 2×
  A drawing of a design invention, no matter how detailed, cannot constitute an actual reduction to practice; the design must be embodied in the article itself.
• Gregg v. Coakwell
  175 F.2d 575· C.C.P.A.· 1949-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant failed to sustain the burden of proving reasonable diligence in filing his patent application during the critical period, and therefore priority of invention was correctly awarded to the appellee.
• Clarke v. Knight
  86 Fla. 491· Fla.· 1923-11-23 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court's decision to vacate a decree pro confesso against defendant Andrew J. Knight and allow him to file an answer. The court held that Knight's motion to vacate, filed one month after entry of the decree, demonstrated reasonable dili
• Marks v. Boone
  24 Fla. 177· Fla.· 1888-01-01 ·cited 2×
  This case concerns whether an endorser of a promissory note received timely notice of the maker's dishonor. The court reversed the lower court's verdict, finding that the evidence presented did not sufficiently prove that the endorser was properly notified within the legally requ
• Connolly v. State
  366 So. 3d 1142· Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-04-12 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of a former FBI agent's motion for postconviction relief. The agent claimed the state violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, specifically an email suggesting he might not be responsible for certain murders.
• Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc.
  636 F. Supp. 2d 1283· M.D. Fla.· 2009-07-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that OSTI's trade secret misappropriation counterclaim was barred by the statute of limitations because OSTI knew or should have known of the alleged misappropriation more than three years before filing the counterclaim.
• Arnold v. McNeil
  622 F. Supp. 2d 1294· M.D. Fla.· 2009-03-31 ·cited 1×
  The State failed to disclose material information concerning a key witness's crimes, violating the defendant's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland.
• City of Fort Lauderdale v. Ross
  815 F. Supp. 444· S.D. Fla.· 1992-10-26 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the statute of limitations issue presented a question of fact and that the complaint sufficiently notified the defendant of the contract claims.
• Eschweiler v. United States
  946 F.2d 45· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 1×
  The IRS complied with its statutory obligation to send the notice of deficiency to the taxpayer's last known address, and therefore the jeopardy assessment is valid.
• Ross v. Twenty-Four Collection, Inc.
  681 F. Supp. 1547· S.D. Fla.· 1988-03-11 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff was subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment, leading to a constructive discharge, and that her reliance on a non-competition agreement excused her failure to mitigate damages.
• Kinchen v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-05
  The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate sentence was time-barred and that he was not entitled to equitable tolling or relief on his constitutional claims.
• Andujar v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-06
  The court held that the motion to vacate the conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was time-barred because it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations, and the defendant failed to establish entitlement to equitable tolling.
• Ahmad Milton v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-09-17
  Ahmad Milton appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence based on newly-discovered evidence and an alleged Brady violation. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding that the employment records at issue were known to
• Davis v. Dixon
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-09-08
  An attorney's negligence, even gross negligence, does not constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling of a federal habeas petition deadline.
• Ellis v. Chronister
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-27
  The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to front pay because he failed to exercise reasonable diligence in seeking substantially equivalent employment and an independent basis, unrelated to the unlawful termination, now precludes him from obtaining such employment.
• Torres-Melvis v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-25
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was time-barred because he failed to demonstrate the necessary diligence for equitable tolling.
• Signature Flight Support LLC v. Cella
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-25
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve defendants via alternative means, allowing email service on one defendant but denying it for another.
• Nance v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-28
  The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence was time-barred and equitable tolling was not warranted, thus dismissing the motion.
• Daisha Ervin v. Sergio A. Alvarez, M.D.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-07-23
  The statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions runs from the time the incident is discovered or should have been discovered with due diligence, and a 90-day extension is automatically granted upon filing a petition and paying the required fee.
• Goodie v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Pasco County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-15
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was time-barred because he failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling and did not act with reasonable diligence.
• Erste Asset Mgmt.
  Del.· 2025-06-09
  The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of Erste's claim for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3), holding that the rule applies to fraud between parties that prevents a party from fairly presenting its case, not solely to fraud on the court. The
• Reinhardt v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-21
  The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence was untimely and his claims lacked merit, as his prior conviction for resisting an officer with violence qualifies as a crime of violence for sentencing enhancement purposes.
• Borja v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-24
  The court held that the prisoner's motion to vacate his sentence was untimely, not cognizable, procedurally defaulted, and meritless, and therefore denied.
• Dumas v. States of Am.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-02
  The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence was untimely and, alternatively, lacked merit because his counsel's decision not to challenge the traffic stop was a reasonable strategic choice given the petitioner's admission of speeding.