Reasonable Diligence

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

• Badger v. Boulevard Bancorp, Inc.
  970 F.2d 410· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-12
  The court held that the plaintiffs' federal securities claims were time-barred because they knew or should have known of the cause of action more than one year before filing suit, applying the reasonable diligence standard.
• United States v. White
  970 F.2d 328· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-03
  The court held that the attorney-client privilege was not violated, and even if it were, the government's actions did not procure the violation, nor did it result in prejudice to the defendants. The court also found no Brady violation as the defendants had access to the informati
• Weger v. Shell OIL Co.
  966 F.2d 216· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-19
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations because they knew or should have known of the injury and its potential wrongful cause more than two years before filing suit.
• Segundo A. Unpingco v. Hong Kong MacAu Corp.
  935 F.2d 1043· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-07
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations because they failed to present specific facts demonstrating when the alleged fraud was discovered or should have been discovered.
• In re Placid OIL Co. v. Placid OIL Co.
  932 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-31
  The court held that a plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations if, despite a misleading letter, a reasonable person would have investigated the circumstances and discovered the wrongful use of property.
• Cacciacarne v. G.D. Searle & Co.
  908 F.2d 95· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-19
  The court held that the plaintiff's cause of action did not accrue until she was informed by her doctor that she would not be able to conceive, as prior uncertainty about the cause of her condition prevented the statute of limitations from running.
• Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
  894 F.2d 838· 6th Cir.· 1990-01-29
  The statute of limitations for property protection insurance benefits under Michigan's no-fault law can be judicially tolled from the date of notice of the claim until the insurer formally denies it, provided the insured acts with reasonable diligence.
• Darrel Quinn v. Polk Cnty.
  861 F.2d 522· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-18
  The court held that the sheriff's department's actions did not constitute negligence or a due process violation, and the plaintiff's own fault exceeded the sheriff's.
• Griffith v. Tsuneo Kanamaru
  816 F.2d 624· Fed. Cir.· 1987-04-08
  The court held that an inventor's university's policy of requiring outside funding and waiting for a graduate student to assist does not constitute reasonable diligence to establish priority of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).
• Paulik v. Nabil Rizkalla and Charles N. Winnick
  796 F.2d 456· Fed. Cir.· 1986-07-21
  The court held that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences failed to comply with the prior remand order by not conducting new interference proceedings and improperly interpreting the court's prior decision.
• Lynch v. Universal Life Church
  775 F.2d 576· 4th Cir.· 1985-10-23
  The judgment is reversed because the action was barred by the statute of limitations and the plaintiff failed to prove the elements of fraud.
• Duncan v. H.M. Leeds
  742 F.2d 989· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-07
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the medical malpractice complaint as time-barred because the complaint adequately alleged fraudulent concealment, which tolls the statute of limitations.
• Bell Tel. Labs. v. Hughes Aircraft Co.
  564 F.2d 654· 3d Cir.· 1977-10-25
  The court held that the district court's finding of reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice was not clearly erroneous and therefore affirmed the award of priority of invention.
• Lipari v. Mar. Overseas Corp.
  493 F.2d 207· 3d Cir.· 1974-02-07
  The court held that a seaman's right to maintenance and cure may be suspended if they fail to diligently seek treatment, and that the shipowner is not liable for periods where the seaman fails to make reasonable efforts to obtain care.
• United States v. Novak
  455 F.2d 921· 3d Cir.· 1972-02-16
  The court held that a defendant is not entitled to a new trial based on evidence that could have been presented at the original trial with reasonable diligence.
• Jones v. State
  233 So. 2d 432· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-03-03
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that could have changed the verdict.
• United States v. Overton
  421 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1969-11-24
  The court held that the newly discovered evidence presented by the movant was insufficient to warrant a new trial because it was either cumulative, impeaching, or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence before trial.
• Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. M/S Slagen
  361 F.2d 478· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-31
  The court held that a furnisher of necessaries to a time-chartered vessel must exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain if the charterer has authority to bind the vessel.
• Est. of Arthur Vining Davis v. Price
  25 Fla. Supp. 91· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1965-04-13
  The court affirmed the dismissal of a counterclaim filed by William R. Price against the Estate of Arthur Vining Davis, finding that the counterclaim did not state a cause of action.
• Cole v. E. GAS & Fuel Assocs.
  322 F.2d 506· 4th Cir.· 1963-08-26
  The court held that whether a party reasonably could have discovered a subterranean trespass, despite having the right to inspect mining operations, is a question of fact that precludes summary judgment.
• Tobin v. Tobin
  18 Fla. Supp. 25· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1961-02-18
  This case involves a divorce action where the defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction and venue. The court found that while jurisdiction was properly established, venue in Dade County was improper, leading to a transfer of the case to Broward County.
• Luckey v. Arline Mae Luckey
  267 F.2d 680· D.C. Cir.· 1959-05-28
  The court held that the insured's failure to comply with the policy's requirements for changing a beneficiary, particularly regarding proof of loss and diligent efforts to recover the policy, meant the change was ineffective.
• Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v. DuPREE Co.
  13 Fla. Supp. 107· Duval Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1958-10-07
  The court held that the defendants' defenses, including equitable estoppel, were insufficient to bar recovery by a materialman on a statutory bond.
• Schulz v. Linkous
  13 Fla. Supp. 97· Volusia Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1958-06-05
  Schulz sued to rescind a motel lease and recover advance rent, claiming Linkous made fraudulent representations about the property's prior income. The court granted rescission and ordered return of the $3,300 advance rent, finding that Linkous knowingly misrepresented prior tenan
• Odell Knoshaug and Merrill Knoshaug v. Pollman
  245 F.2d 271· 8th Cir.· 1957-06-07
  The court held that the appellants waived their right to rescind the deed by unreasonably delaying action and ratified the contract through their subsequent conduct.
• Nisbet v. Ira van Tuyl and Elsin C. Van Tuyl
  241 F.2d 874· 7th Cir.· 1957-03-07
  Plaintiffs can only recover damages to the extent they have actually expended funds or incurred a legally binding liability, not the full cost paid by a third party.
• Eastman Kodak Co. v. Home Utils. Co.
  234 F.2d 766· 4th Cir.· 1956-06-05
  A "commodity" under the Maryland Fair Trade Act can include a "bundle" of items, even if some components are not Fair-Traded separately, as long as the bundle is sold as a distinct unit under a single brand name and is in free and open competition.
• Perry v. Barrett
  8 Fla. Supp. 42· Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1955-07-25
  This case involves a purchaser seeking to rescind a real estate contract due to a roadway easement bisecting the property. The court denied rescission, finding the purchaser did not clearly demand the defect be cured before filing suit.
• In re Kuhn
  183 F.2d 96· C.C.P.A.· 1950-06-30
  The court held that the patentee's delay in filing a broadened reissue application was unreasonable and constituted laches, barring the reissue claims.
• Teter v. Kearby
  169 F.2d 808· C.C.P.A.· 1948-06-01
  The court held that the sole application is entitled to the benefit of the earliest joint application's filing date because the applicant acted with good faith and reasonable diligence in converting the joint application to a sole application.
• Ferguson v. Myers
  2 Fla. Supp. 109· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1947-03-12
  In this real estate contract dispute, the court held that a purchaser's delay in submitting title objections beyond the contractual 30-day period did not forfeit his right to specific performance where time was not made of the essence and the seller failed to give timely notice o
• Seven Up Co. v. Cheer Up Sales Co. of ST. Louis
  153 F.2d 231· 8th Cir.· 1946-02-04
  The court held that a petition for leave to file a bill of review should be denied when the proposed new evidence, even if true, would not have changed the outcome of the original trial.
• Ahearn v. Ahearn
  124 Fla. 524· Fla.· 1936-06-12
  C. E. Ahearn appeals the vacation of a final decree in a divorce or domestic relations case, arguing that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to set aside the decree after it had become absolute. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, holding that the showing made for vacating the d
• Royal Palm Realty Co. v. Gruber
  99 Fla. 726· Fla.· 1930-04-02
  Royal Palm Realty Company appeals from dismissal of its bill seeking to set aside a deed and settlement agreement with M.E. Gruber as unauthorized and void. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding the corporation guilty of laches and lack of good faith by waitin