Relation Back Of Amended Pleadings

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

• 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.
• Barthel v. Stamm
  145 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1944-11-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the amended petition related back to the original filing date, thus avoiding the statute of limitations, and that the defendant was incompetent to testify to an agreement contradicting the written loan documents.
• Isaacks v. Jeffers
  144 F.2d 26· 10th Cir.· 1944-07-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was not tolled because the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence in serving the defendant.
• Columbia Plaza Corp. v. Sec. Nat'l Bank
  525 F.2d 620· D.C. Cir.· 1975-10-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the District Court erred in denying a preliminary injunction to enjoin prosecution of a New York action, as the claims constituted a compulsory counterclaim that should be litigated in the District of Columbia.
• U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff
  768 F.2d 1099· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the magistrate's order allowing amendment was reviewable, the amended claim related back, and the salvage award was not an abuse of discretion.
• Tessier v. United States
  269 F.2d 305· 1st Cir.· 1959-07-31 ·cited 34×
  The court held that under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a claim accrues when the injury occurs, not when the plaintiff discovers it, and continuing negligent treatment does not toll the statute of limitations for foreign objects left in the body.
• Handley v. Anclote Manor Found.
  253 So. 2d 501· Fla. 2d DCA· 1971-10-15 ·cited 29×
  The court addressed whether an amended complaint adding a new plaintiff and asserting a wrongful death claim relates back to the original complaint filed within the statute of limitations period. The court held that under Florida's relation-back doctrine, the amendment should rel
• Jimenez v. Astol Calero Toledo
  604 F.2d 99· 1st Cir.· 1979-07-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that neither fraudulent concealment nor the relation back doctrine under Rule 15(c) saved the appellant's claims against the appellees from being time-barred.
• Mainlands Constr. Co., Inc. v. Wen-Dic Constr. Co., Inc.
  482 So. 2d 1369· Fla.· 1986-02-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an amended counterclaim relates back to the original timely filed counterclaim, even if filed more than twenty days after a complaint for discharge of a mechanic's lien, and therefore does not bar the foreclosure action.
• Johnson v. Taylor Rental Ctr., Inc.
  458 So. 2d 845· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-11-07 ·cited 25×
  The court addressed whether an amended complaint adding a new defendant (A-1 Sales and Rental Enterprises, Inc.) could relate back to the original complaint filed within the statute of limitations. The court held that relation back does not apply when an entirely new party is add
• Jerrald M. Johnson v. United States Postal Serv.
  861 F.2d 1475· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) does not allow relation back of an amended complaint to name a new party defendant if notice was not received within the statutory limitations period.
• COX v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  360 So. 2d 8· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-05-26 ·cited 24×
  Minor filed successive wrongful death actions against a railroad for injuries sustained in a train-car collision that killed his parents. After the statute of limitations expired, he sought to amend his second wrongful death complaint to add a personal injury claim. The court aff
• The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Mrs. Ada Z. Brown
  338 F.2d 229· 5th Cir.· 1964-10-16 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the amended complaint related back to the original filing date for prescription purposes and that the "cross-employee" exclusion in the insurance policy did not apply to the plaintiffs, allowing their claims to proceed.
• Fabbiano v. Demings
  91 So. 3d 893· Fla. 5th DCA· 2012-06-29 ·cited 22×
  A personal injury plaintiff sued for negligence after an off-duty deputy threw him to the ground and re-fractured his arm. After the statute of limitations expired, he sought to amend his complaint to allege battery based on the same facts. The court held that the amendment relat
• Bazzano v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
  579 F.2d 465· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing to bring the wrongful death action because she initiated suit against a party within the statutory period, thereby appropriating the cause of action, even though it was not the correct defendant.
• Murphy v. Wisu Props., Ltd.
  895 So. 2d 1088· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-11-03 ·cited 18×
  Murphy and other defendants sought attorney's fees under Florida Statute § 57.105 after plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint against a condominium association's board. The appellate court reversed the fee awards, holding that the underlying claims were not frivolous a
• Craig v. E. Pasco Med. Ctr., Inc.
  650 So. 2d 179· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-02-08 ·cited 18×
  Plaintiff appealed a summary judgment in a negligence action arising from a hospital slip-and-fall injury, contending the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to amend the complaint to name the correct defendant corporation. The court reversed, holding that the
• Allen v. Veterans Admin.
  749 F.2d 1386· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the United States did not receive sufficient notice of the original complaint within the statute of limitations period to allow the amended complaint naming the United States as a defendant to relate back.
• Forzley v. Avco Corp. Elecs. Div.
  826 F.2d 974· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that AVCO did not breach the employment agreement by terminating Forzley due to prolonged illness, and that Forzley's claim for retroactive overtime pay was time-barred.
• Standard OIL Co. OF Cal. v. Perkins
  396 F.2d 809· 9th Cir.· 1967-11-02 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding that its prior opinion adequately addressed the arguments presented.
• Grantham v. Blount, Inc.
  683 So. 2d 538· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-09-27 ·cited 11×
  Grantham sued Blount, Inc. after suffering an electrical injury, initially naming only 'John Doe' as the equipment manufacturer defendant. The Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal on statute of limitations grounds, holding that filing a John Doe complaint does not commence
• Britt v. Cyril S. Arvanitis
  590 F.2d 57· 3d Cir.· 1978-11-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the amended complaint did not relate back to the original filing date because the defendant had no notice of the suit within the limitations period, and thus the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Omnibus Fin. Corp. v. United States
  566 F.2d 1097· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the IRS agents complied with statutory procedures for levy and sale, and that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by procedural defects and statutes of limitations.
• Farr v. Clement
  202 So. 2d 613· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-09-22 ·cited 10×
  A county judge has discretion to permit amendment of a claim against a decedent's estate, even after the statutory filing period, if a bona fide attempt to file was made and the defect is one of form, such as an unsworn claim.
• Anderson v. Transglobe Energy Corp.
  35 F. Supp. 2d 1363· M.D. Fla.· 1999-02-08 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' securities fraud and common law fraud claims, as well as their statute of limitations defense, were sufficiently pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss.
• P.V. Constr. Corp. v. Kovner
  538 So. 2d 502· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-02-01 ·cited 9×
  P.V. Construction Corp. appealed the dismissal of its amended counterclaim against Sidney Kovner for intentional property damage on statute of limitations grounds. The court held that the amended counterclaim relating back to the original counterclaim was timely, as the delay in
• Jaser v. NEW York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n & Adriano Fernandes
  815 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint to drop nondiverse parties, as those parties were not indispensable. However, the dismissal for lack of diversity was proper.
• Siegel v. Converters Transp., Inc.
  714 F.2d 213· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-02 ·cited 8×
  A shareholder of a contract carrier can bring a derivative action to recover freight rate differences, and an estoppel defense is unavailable under the Interstate Commerce Act. Amended complaints relating to the same transaction relate back to the original filing date for statute
• Brooks v. Interlachen Lakes Ests., Inc.
  332 So. 2d 681· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-05-18 ·cited 8×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an order dismissing a tax assessment challenge complaint with leave to amend, holding that a taxpayer's subsequent payment of admitted taxes relates back to the filing of the original complaint under the relation-back doctrine, thus s
• Thurman Brown v. E.W. Bliss Co.
  818 F.2d 1405· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants, holding that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations or that the defendants were not successors in liability to the original manufacturer.
• Grattan v. Burnett
  710 F.2d 160· 4th Cir.· 1983-06-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appropriate limitations period for claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 in Maryland is three years, and that the amended complaint relating back to the original timely complaint saved the claims from being time-barred.
• Permenter v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
  712 So. 2d 1178· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-06-17 ·cited 4×
  A motion to amend a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations, and an amended complaint adding a new party does not relate back to the date of the motion.
• Farrell v. Captain Lawrence McDONOUGH
  966 F.2d 279· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the inmate's section 1983 complaint against the captain was time-barred because the amended complaint was filed outside the applicable two-year statute of limitations and did not relate back.
• Rona E. Yurgel v. Yurgel
  546 So. 2d 746· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-07-07 ·cited 4×
  A former wife appealed the trial court's dismissal of her supplemental petition to modify child custody, arguing the court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the modification. The appellate court held that while the trial court lacked "home state" jurisdiction under the Unif
• The Minn. Chippewa Tribe (No. 19) RED Lake Band v. The United States
  768 F.2d 338· Fed. Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 4×
  The United States cannot be compelled to furnish separate accountings for property and expenditures on a band-by-band basis for most Chippewa bands, as these claims were not timely pleaded and are barred by the statute of limitations.
• BBD Transp. Co., Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  627 F.2d 170· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged a conspiracy to depress motor carrier rates, allowing claims against the railroads for the steel companies' anticompetitive acts, and that the amended complaint related back to the original filing date for statute
• Burns v. Union Pac. R.R.
  564 F.2d 20· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 was barred by the statute of limitations, even if the filing date was considered earlier.
• Banco Para EL Comercio Exterior de Cuba v. First Nat'l City Bank
  744 F.2d 237· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly calculated Citibank's uncompensated losses from expropriation, and therefore correctly dismissed Bancec's claim.
• Colin v. State
  423 So. 2d 1020· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-12-29 ·cited 2×
  Appeal dismissed as untimely because plaintiff's petition for rehearing on a non-final venue order did not toll the thirty-day appeal period, and the notice of appeal was filed beyond that deadline.
• Brauer v. Republic Steel Corp.
  460 F.2d 801· 10th Cir.· 1972-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for breach of warranty and negligence were not barred by the statute of limitations, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding evidence, damages, or jury instructions.
• Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. P. a
  11th Cir.· 2010-06-07 ·cited 1×
  Krupski sued Costa Cruise Lines for injuries sustained on a cruise ship, but the proper defendant was Costa Crociere S.p.A., the actual carrier. After the statute of limitations expired, Krupski amended her complaint to add Costa Crociere, which moved to dismiss arguing the amend
• Fulton v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
  11th Cir.· 2025-07-31
  Brandon Fulton sued Fulton County after the county seized his horses during a criminal investigation, dropped charges against him, and failed to return or compensate him for the animals. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause creates a direct cause of
• IAG Engine Ctr. Corp. v. Cagney Global Logistics, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-11-17
  The court held that the state law claims were preempted by the Carmack Amendment, and the inclusion of the Underwriters as plaintiffs violated the bankruptcy court's automatic stay order because the order did not contemplate their involvement.
• Ashland LLC v. THE Samuel J. Heyman 1981 Continuing Tr. FOR Lazarus S. Heyman
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2018-06-21
  The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the fraud claim. The court found that the fraud claim, although filed outside the statute of limitations, was potentially tolled due to the defendants' alleged concealment of material information and that the claim could relate b
• Henderson v. Johnson
  97 So. 3d 946· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-09-13
  Ricky Henderson challenged his loss in a 2010 Madison County School Board election by 28 votes, alleging irregularities in absentee ballot voting. The trial court dismissed his amended election contest complaint with prejudice, but the appellate court reversed, finding no valid b
• Anderson v. Moser
  156 F.2d 408· 7th Cir.· 1946-06-24
  The court held that the plaintiff receiver failed to meet the burden of proving he was out of state as required by Indiana law to pursue claims against estate distributees.