Rule 41(B)

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

• Citizens Utils. Co. v. The Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  595 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 24×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissing the action for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion, given the defendants' significant contributions to the delay.
• Forrest Petty v. Manpower, Inc.
  591 F.2d 615· 10th Cir.· 1979-02-12 ·cited 24×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  An order dismissing a complaint for lack of prosecution, when intended by the district court to dismiss the entire action, is an appealable order.
• Glick v. Ballentine Produce, Inc.
  397 F.2d 590· 8th Cir.· 1968-07-24 ·cited 24×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the one-year period under the Missouri wrongful death statute's savings clause began to run from the date of this court's mandate, not from the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, and that the initial suit was not covered by the savings clause as it was not
• Joseph v. Norton Co.
  273 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1959-12-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's suit with prejudice under Rule 41(b) when trial counsel refused to proceed due to the alleged illness of assisting counsel.
• Royster Drive-In Theatres, Inc. v. Am. Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc.
  268 F.2d 246· 2d Cir.· 1959-06-08 ·cited 24×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and that the plaintiff failed to prove a continuing conspiracy or damages resulting from any violation of law.
• Ira W. Nichol v. Pullman Standard, Inc.
  889 F.2d 115· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 23×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that an employee can waive entitlement to long-term disability benefits under an ERISA welfare benefit plan, and that the severance agreements were validly entered into.
• Scarborough v. Eubanks
  747 F.2d 871· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 23×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissal as a sanction for dilatory conduct was an abuse of discretion because the district court failed to adequately consider alternative sanctions and the plaintiff's conduct, while tardy, did not warrant such an extreme penalty.
• Beecher v. Able
  575 F.2d 1010· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-13 ·cited 23×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a settlement agreement's explicit non-reversion clause barred the defendant from recovering unclaimed settlement funds, even if the number of claimants was lower than anticipated, and that the district court had the equitable power to reallocate funds for fair
• U. S. Fibres, Inc. v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
  509 F.2d 1043· 6th Cir.· 1975-01-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the seller did not breach express or implied warranties, commit fraud, or act negligently, and that the buyer's own actions caused the product defects.
• Velazquez-Rivera v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.
  920 F.2d 1072· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 22×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissal of the action was an excessive sanction for the attorney's inadvertent failure to appear at a pretrial conference, constituting an abuse of discretion.
• Romero v. The City OF Pomona
  883 F.2d 1418· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 22×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion to reopen their case, in its application of the geographical compactness test, or in denying defendants' motion to retax costs for expert witness fees.
• Eldridge v. Block
  832 F.2d 1132· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 22×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the pro se prisoner's timely request for an extension to file an amended complaint, especially when the prisoner lacked access to the necessary local rules, and thus the subsequent dismissal was also an abuse
• Holloway v. A.L. Lockhart
  813 F.2d 874· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 22×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a local rule conditioning discovery on leave of court for prisoner petitions is invalid because it conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that summary judgment was inappropriate due to genuine issues of material fact and insufficient discover
• In re Hill v. Shekter
  775 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 22×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the bankruptcy appeal solely for the attorney's failure to timely file a brief without considering alternative sanctions.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Univ. OF Okla.
  774 F.2d 999· 10th Cir.· 1985-10-02 ·cited 22×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the order of proof in discrimination cases loses significance after a full trial and should not be treated differently from other ultimate questions of fact when applying standards for judgments n.o.v.
• Pease v. Peters
  550 F.2d 698· 1st Cir.· 1977-03-11 ·cited 22×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice for lack of prosecution.
• Fendler v. Westgate-California Corp.
  527 F.2d 1168· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 22×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the third amended complaint with prejudice and denying class certification.
• Whit Mason v. The Am. Emery Wheel Works
  241 F.2d 906· 1st Cir.· 1957-03-08 ·cited 22×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the Mississippi Supreme Court would likely abandon its prior rule of non-liability for manufacturers to remote purchasers without privity, aligning with the modern trend of imposing such liability.
• Galdi v. Jones
  141 F.2d 984· 2d Cir.· 1944-04-04 ·cited 22×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the stockholder actions based on indispensable party issues and insufficient pleading of stock ownership and reasons for not making a demand.
• Holmes v. Bevilacqua
  794 F.2d 142· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 21×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
• Hall v. Burger King Corp.
  912 F. Supp. 1509· S.D. Fla.· 1995-11-13 ·cited 20×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by general releases they had executed, as the releases were clear, unambiguous, and the plaintiffs were aware of their claims and represented by counsel when signing them.
• Wellington Mitchell v. Baldrige
  759 F.2d 80· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a plaintiff must have a full and fair opportunity to rebut nondiscriminatory reasons presented after resting their case before a Rule 41(b) dismissal can be granted. The court also clarified the elements of a prima facie case under Title VII.
• Morris v. Ocean Sys., Inc.
  730 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 20×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that an involuntary dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute was an inappropriate exercise of judicial discretion when the record did not show a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and lesser sanctions were not considered.
• McKENZIE v. United States
  678 F.2d 571· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-14 ·cited 20×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court affirmed the judgment for the United States in the FTCA action, finding no clear error in the factual determination that the dog was not owned by a government employee. The court vacated the judgment in the removed state action, finding the district court lacked subject
• Harrell v. N. Elec. Co.
  672 F.2d 444· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 20×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the statistical evidence presented a prima facie case of class-wide racial discrimination in hiring for clerical positions, and the employer's justifications were insufficient to rebut this showing. Individual claims were also found to have merit.
• Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana
  662 F.2d 1275· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-21 ·cited 20×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court vacated the order of dismissal and remanded the case.
• Bush v. The United States Postal Serv.
  496 F.2d 42· 4th Cir.· 1974-04-29 ·cited 20×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court would affirm dismissal for failure to prosecute, but for a peculiar circumstance regarding how the hearing date was set.
• Am. Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. of Chicago v. United States
  142 F.2d 571· D.C. Cir.· 1944-05-08 ·cited 20×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A dismissal for want of prosecution, when not specified otherwise, operates as an adjudication on the merits and bars a subsequent suit under the principle of res judicata.
• Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. OF TAX Review & Tax Assessor
  922 F.2d 168· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 19×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A district court cannot grant summary judgment solely based on a local rule deeming a motion conceded due to non-response; it must still determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp.
  891 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 19×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions because the defendants' insistence on Hague Convention service was warranted by existing law and not for an improper purpose. The court affirmed the denial of discovery sanctions and the ta
• Stephenson v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc.
  839 F.2d 1095· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a plaintiff's failure to read account statements and timely complain about unauthorized trades, despite extensive financial knowledge, constituted recklessness, barring a Rule 10b-5 claim and supporting equitable defenses.
• Terry Props., Inc. v. Standard OIL Co. (IND)
  799 F.2d 1523· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court affirmed the district court's findings on liability for race discrimination and interference claims, but reversed the award of attorney's fees for some appellees.
• Price v. Andrew "Duke" McGLATHERY, Jr.
  792 F.2d 472· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case due to the plaintiff's attorney's repeated failure to comply with court orders and failure to appear at a scheduled conference.
• Cannon v. Loyola Univ. OF Chicago
  784 F.2d 777· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that prior dismissals of the plaintiff's suits operated as res judicata, barring the current action against all defendant medical schools.
• Ekanem v. The Health & Hosp. Corp. OF Marion Cnty.
  778 F.2d 1254· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-05 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that plaintiffs were not prevailing parties entitled to appellate attorneys fees because they did not achieve the primary relief sought and prior appellate rulings did not constitute prevailing on the merits.
• Geaney v. Carlson
  776 F.2d 140· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the magistrate's dismissal, whether characterized as voluntary or involuntary, because the dismissal was either a nonappealable voluntary dismissal or an involuntary dismissal entered without the required consent for a final app
• Johnson v. McKASKLE
  727 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The district court erred in dismissing a prisoner's § 1983 action with prejudice based on res judicata, as claims arising after the Ruiz v. Estelle judgment could not have been litigated in that class action.
• Darms v. McCULLOCH OIL Corp.
  720 F.2d 490· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute, nor in denying class certification or granting partial summary judgment.
• Jehan Zeb MIR v. Fosburg
  706 F.2d 916· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-29 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute without sufficient evidence of prejudice to the defendants.
• Clair Olsen & Guitar City Studios, Inc. v. Progressive Music Supply, Inc.
  703 F.2d 432· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of most claims, but upheld the finding of a Section 1 Sherman Act violation for a conspiracy to boycott Olsen, affirming the awarded damages.
• Raceway Props., Inc. v. Emprise Corp.
  613 F.2d 656· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court's order defining the relevant market was appealable, and affirmed the district court's determination that the relevant market was the franchise market, not the concession market.
• Dickerson v. United States Steel Corp.
  582 F.2d 827· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  An individual class member who is not a named plaintiff and whose class-wide claim has been dismissed cannot seek relief for an individual claim of discrimination if they have not satisfied jurisdictional prerequisites in their own name.
• M. S. v. Wermers
  557 F.2d 170· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-29 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissing a minor's action for refusing to notify her parents of guardianship proceedings was an abuse of discretion, as the parents' interests were adverse to the minor's privacy claim.
• DELTA Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
  398 F.2d 323· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-24 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
• Wolf v. Reynolds Elec. & Eng'g Co., Inc.
  304 F.2d 646· 9th Cir.· 1962-06-26 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the trial court properly dismissed the case because the plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence that the defendants' crane protruded and caused the accident.
• Peardon v. Chapman
  169 F.2d 909· 3d Cir.· 1948-09-02 ·cited 18×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for lack of prosecution was unwarranted and is reversed.
• Laskaris v. Thornburgh
  733 F.2d 260· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-24 ·cited 17×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, meaning the prior panel decision stands.
• Hall v. Tower Land & Inv. Co.
  512 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-02 ·cited 17×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the plaintiff's second suit was barred by res judicata because it involved the same cause of action as a prior dismissed suit.
• Vargas v. Peltz
  901 F. Supp. 1572· S.D. Fla.· 1995-03-17 ·cited 16×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the plaintiff's fabrication of evidence and perjury constituted a fraud on the court, warranting dismissal of the action with prejudice.
• In re Pyramid Energy, Ltd. v. Heyl & Patterson, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1058· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-27 ·cited 16×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A party is bound by its counsel's actions, and repeated failure to comply with court orders, even due to counsel's dilatory conduct, justifies dismissal with prejudice.