Rule 41(B)

73 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 622 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Peart v. City OF NEW York
  992 F.2d 458· 2d Cir.· 1993-05-03 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice and imposing monetary sanctions on counsel due to the attorney's failure to comply with court orders and prosecute the action.
• Abdul Y. Salahuddin v. E.W. Jones
  992 F.2d 447· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-30 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a district court has the power to dismiss claims on res judicata grounds even if the defense is not raised in the pleadings, and that new claims were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.
• Horwitz v. Alloy Auto. Co.
  992 F.2d 100· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-21 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a prior dismissal for want of prosecution, even if potentially erroneous, has preclusive effect and bars subsequent litigation, absent established exceptions or timely appeal.
• Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  990 F.2d 865· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-13
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the chromium contamination was caused by an 'accident' during the period of the defendant insurer's coverage.
• The Harold Wash. Party v. The Cook Cnty.
  984 F.2d 875· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-29 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal order under Rule 60(b).
• Little v. Yeutter
  984 F.2d 160· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-19 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the case for failure to prosecute, as there was no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.
• Ferdik v. Bonzelet
  963 F.2d 1258· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissing a pro se prisoner's civil rights action for failing to remove 'et al' from the caption was an abuse of discretion.
• Buck v. U.S. Dep't OF Agric.
  960 F.2d 603· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the dismissal for lack of prosecution, as the attorney's conduct was culpable and the claims lacked merit.
• Harvey's Wagon Wheel, Inc. v. Toshi van Blitter
  959 F.2d 153· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-25 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  In a diversity action, a federal rule of civil procedure applies over a state rule if they are coextensive and the federal rule is within constitutional power and the Rules Enabling Act, unless strong Erie considerations mandate otherwise.
• First Gen. Res. Co. v. Elton Leather Corp.
  958 F.2d 204· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice for a pattern of intentional delay and failure to comply with discovery orders.
• Bbca, Inc. v. United States
  954 F.2d 1429· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-24 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that BBCA's notice of appeal was untimely because it was filed more than sixty days after the original dismissal order, and neither the IRS's motion to amend nor BBCA's motion to reconsider qualified as a Rule 59 motion to extend the appeal period.
• Dimuccio v. D'Ambra
  590 F. App'x 613· M.D. Fla.· 1991-10-04 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and plaintiffs' motion for rehearing on the civil theft claim, finding the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded fraud, undue influence, and breach of fiduciary duty, and that the civil theft claim was p
• Hillig v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  916 F.2d 171· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissing a case to penalize blameless taxpayers for their attorneys' misconduct is an abuse of discretion, especially when less drastic sanctions are available.
• Guyer v. Beard
  907 F.2d 1424· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-20 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the inmate's habeas petition because his refusal to sign a limited power of attorney form, necessary for mail delivery and inspection, was contumacious and made adjudication impossible.
• Ruiz v. Alegria
  896 F.2d 635· 1st Cir.· 1990-02-23 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the federal claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders, but the pendent state law claims should have been dismissed without prejudice.
• Ballard v. Carlson
  882 F.2d 93· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-10 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit for failure to obey a court order, nor in dismissing the claim against Finley.
• Hernandez v. Whiting
  881 F.2d 768· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A district court must consider less drastic alternatives before dismissing a prisoner's pro se civil rights suit for failure to appear due to incarceration.
• Sepulveda v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n
  878 F.2d 1137· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-23 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that unsuccessful applicants for foreman registration lacked standing to sue for breach of the collective bargaining agreement because they were neither members of the bargaining unit nor third-party beneficiaries.
• Wright v. Sargent
  869 F.2d 1175· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the magistrate did not abuse discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice and assessing costs due to the plaintiff's failure to appear for trial and the incredible nature of his excuses.
• Chicago Ridge Theatre Ltd. P'ship v. M & R Amusement Corp.
  855 F.2d 465· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court's reliance on unintroduced expert testimony violated due process, requiring a new trial.
• Leo M. Mullen, M.D. v. Galati
  843 F.2d 293· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims and award of attorney's fees, finding no bias, lack of jurisdiction, or abuse of discretion.
• Alvarez v. Simmons Mkt. Research Bureau, Inc.
  839 F.2d 930· 2d Cir.· 1988-02-18 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissing the action for failure to prepare a portion of the pretrial order was an abuse of discretion.
• McCULLOUGH v. Lynaugh
  835 F.2d 1126· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-20 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute, as the plaintiff had not suffered prejudicial harm.
• Forrest Creek Assocs., Ltd. v. McLEAN Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  831 F.2d 1238· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-28 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims and counterclaims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet contractual conditions and prove fraud, and that the defendants did not abuse their discretion regarding sanctions or costs.
• ALI A. Tamini v. M/V Jewon
  808 F.2d 978· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-06 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the in rem action against the ship for lack of diligent prosecution, as prejudice from the delay was not adequately established.
• LEE Tool & Mould, Ltd. v. Fort Wayne Pools, Inc.
  791 F.2d 605· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-29 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the plaintiff's conversion claim accrued when the defendant refused to return the mould upon demand, and since the action was filed more than two years after that date, it was barred by the Indiana statute of limitations.
• Tingley v. Henson Aviation, Inc.
  789 F.2d 275· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-24 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she was qualified for the captain position was not clearly erroneous.
• B.K. Copeland v. Aric Smith
  779 F.2d 215· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-16 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, affirming the dismissal of the civil RICO claims.
• Albright v. United States
  732 F.2d 181· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-10 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between the videotaping and their alleged emotional injuries, and that the agency did not act intentionally or willfully in violation of the Privacy Act.
• Pettijohn v. Dade Cnty.
  446 So. 2d 1143· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-03-13 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A Florida court must give res judicata effect to a federal court's dismissal with prejudice for lack of prosecution, as such a dismissal constitutes an adjudication on the merits under federal law.
• Morrissey v. Cnty. Tower Corp.
  717 F.2d 1227· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-05 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the shareholder's claims, finding no clear error in the factual findings or reversible error in the legal conclusions.
• Hersch & Co. v. C & W Manhattan Assocs.
  700 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The dissenting opinion argues that an attorney fee should not be awarded because the claimant's attorney filed premature claims for permanent total disability benefits before the claimant reached maximum medical improvement and before rehabilitation efforts were unsuccessful.
• Byrd v. Vitek
  689 F.2d 770· 8th Cir.· 1982-10-01 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to prove that the lack of work opportunities at the prison violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
• Brown v. Cameron-Brown Co.
  652 F.2d 375· 4th Cir.· 1981-06-18 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case under Rule 83, as Rules 12(b) and 56 provide adequate procedures for disposing of meritless claims.
• In re Dolleslager v. Dolleslager
  618 F.2d 322· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-02
  The court held that dismissal of the bank's complaint was an abuse of discretion because the severe sanction was disproportionate to the bank's procedural defaults, and less severe sanctions were available.
• W. Auto Supply Co. v. Anderson
  610 F.2d 1126· 3d Cir.· 1979-11-27
  The court held that an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) was improper when there was no failure by the plaintiff to prosecute or comply with rules or orders, and the dismissal was sua sponte without consent.
• United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. LEE Nat'l Corp.
  513 F.2d 899· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-11 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and therefore affirmed the judgment.
• Fetsko v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  497 F.2d 399· 3d Cir.· 1974-05-15 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The district court erred in dismissing the actions for a second time, disregarding the prior appellate ruling that jury questions were presented.
• Hope v. Hayden-Stone, Inc.
  469 F.2d 1060· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-22 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove any violation of securities laws based on the broker's statements, and the sale of other stock to cover losses was lawful.
• de Tore v. The Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc.
  411 F.2d 613· 3d Cir.· 1969-05-22
  The court held that the trial judge's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and the evidence was insufficient to establish causation or constructive notice.
• Jarboe Bros. Storage Warehouses, Inc. v. Allied van Lines, Inc.
  400 F.2d 743· 4th Cir.· 1968-09-05 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A felony conviction by an agent's president, using the principal's name for fraudulent intrastate bids, constitutes a breach of the agency contract, and the principal's cancellation of the contract was proper.
• Int'l Harvester Co. v. Rockwell Spring & Axle Co.
  339 F.2d 949· 7th Cir.· 1964-12-28
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the action under Rule 41(b) and that the provision estopping the defendant from asserting the statute of limitations was of doubtful validity.
• Slack v. Rich
  182 F.2d 706· D.C. Cir.· 1950-06-19 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a prior dismissal order, operating as an adjudication on the merits, is res judicata and bars the present action.
• Walter Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Clark
  166 F.2d 435· Emer. Ct. App.· 1948-02-25 ·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the price regulations were valid and that the complainant's challenges lacked merit. Dismissal of the complaints was affirmed.