Rule 41(B)

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

• Ojeda-Toro v. Rivera-Mendez
  853 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 16×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a party cannot use Rule 60(b) to evade the consequences of a conscious decision not to appeal, nor can they claim fraud or excusable neglect when they had access to information or were aware of counsel's actions.
• A.M. Jatoi v. Hurst-Euless-Bedford Hosp. Auth.
  807 F.2d 1214· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-14 ·cited 16×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that Dr. Jatoi's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1985 were improperly dismissed and that the HEB Hospital Authority's actions could constitute state action for a § 1983 claim.
• Gibbs v. King
  779 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 16×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a prisoner's due process rights were violated by a disciplinary conviction for violating an unposted policy, requiring remand for factual findings. However, other due process claims, First Amendment challenges to a disciplinary rule, and harassment claims were
• Jones v. Bell Helicopter Co.
  614 F.2d 1389· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 16×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  An individual cannot bring a private Title VII action based on the same claim as an earlier EEOC action if that action was dismissed on the merits due to the EEOC's failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Eulalio Frausto and Peter L. Smith v. Legal AID Soc'y OF SAN Diego, Inc.
  563 F.2d 1324· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-01 ·cited 16×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that poor interview performance, unstable employment history, poor reputation, and inability to get along with people are legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for rejecting an employment application under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
• Lang v. Cone
  542 F.2d 751· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-19 ·cited 16×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that any procedural error in dismissing one claim was harmless.
• A. & N. Club v. Great Am. Ins. Co.
  404 F.2d 100· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-05 ·cited 16×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A defendant who proceeds with presenting evidence after the court reserves ruling on a motion to dismiss waives the right to appeal the disposition of that motion.
• Garden Homes, Inc. v. Mason
  249 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1957-10-25 ·cited 16×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and that federal jurisdiction was properly established.
• Greene v. Meese
  875 F.2d 639· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-24 ·cited 15×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A federal prisoner's suit seeking both damages and restoration of good-time credits is predominantly a habeas corpus action requiring complete exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Franks v. The Kroger Co.
  649 F.2d 1216· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 15×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court reversed the settlement agreement, finding it not in the best interest of the class members due to unequal benefits and the burden placed on individuals to prove discrimination.
• Hammac v. Windham
  119 So. 2d 822· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-04-07 ·cited 15×
  Betty Hammac appealed from a summary judgment dismissing her negligence action based on res judicata. The court held that a final judgment dismissing a complaint for failure to state a cause of action operates as an adjudication on the merits under Florida Rule 1.35(b), barring a
• Jones v. Law Firm of Hill & Ponton
  141 F. Supp. 2d 1349· M.D. Fla.· 2001-03-26 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's domicile was previously determined in a related case, and the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing redressable harm for his legal malpractice claims.
• Zimmerman v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co.
  932 F.2d 469· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  Oral promises of lifetime employment are barred by the Texas statute of frauds, and an employee handbook, absent an express agreement to discharge only for cause, does not modify the at-will employment doctrine.
• Wages v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  915 F.2d 1230· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-09 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court affirmed the district court's post-judgment order, finding that while the dismissal of IRS claims on the merits was erroneous, the dismissal of claims against individual defendants was not, and the imposition of sanctions was proper.
• Fruit v. Norris
  905 F.2d 1147· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-11 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim was improper because the inmates presented sufficient evidence of a prima facie violation, including dangers beyond toxic gases, to survive a Rule 41(b) dismissal.
• In re Funkhouser
  873 F.2d 1076· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the Magistrate's undue delay in processing an in forma pauperis prisoner civil rights action and his procedural handling of partial filing fees were improper.
• W. Martin Haskell, M.D. v. Wash. Twp.
  864 F.2d 1266· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the defendants waived their statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it in their initial responsive pleading. The court also found that the district court's rulings on standing were conflicting and that the Rule 41(b) dismissal was subject to a clear
• Dunbar v. Triangle Lumber & Supply Co.
  816 F.2d 126· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-14 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissal under Rule 41(b) requires consideration of the client's personal responsibility and the merits of the claim, and that the district court abused its discretion by not fully considering these factors.
• Palmer v. City OF Decatur
  814 F.2d 426· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that dismissing a pro se, incarcerated plaintiff's case with prejudice for failure to obtain counsel and respond to a motion within a short timeframe, without adequate notice, constituted an abuse of discretion.
• Dyer v. Greif Bros., Inc.
  766 F.2d 398· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Title VII claim, and removal cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed.
• D.P. Apparel Corp. v. Roadway Express, Inc.
  736 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-31 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for damage under the Carmack Amendment.
• Braxton v. Bi-State Dev. Agency & Amalgamated Transit Union
  728 F.2d 1105· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-01 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the three lawsuits for failure to prosecute, non-compliance with court rules, and abuse of process.
• Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. City OF Claxton
  720 F.2d 1230· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the action was properly dismissed because service of process was defective and did not relate back to the filing date under Georgia law due to a lack of diligence by the plaintiffs.
• Minerva H. Sanders v. Gen. Servs. Admin.
  707 F.2d 969· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 14×
  A district court may grant a renewed motion for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) after initially denying it, even after the defendant has presented some evidence, if the court reconsiders the plaintiff's case alone and finds it insufficient.
• McLEARN v. Cowen & Co. & Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
  660 F.2d 845· 2d Cir.· 1981-09-28 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) was not available for the substantial relief sought by the appellant.
• Knox v. Lichtenstein
  654 F.2d 19· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-21 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the Bank's motion to enjoin the state court action, as it properly exercised its discretion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) to clarify a prior dismissal order.
• Johnson v. Boyd-Richardson Co.
  650 F.2d 147· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-03 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A dismissal for failure to name the correct party, even if later made final without explicit prejudice, does not operate as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes.
• Teltronics Servs., Inc. v. L M Ericsson Telecomms., Inc.
  642 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1981-02-17 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the second antitrust complaint was barred by res judicata due to the prior dismissal of the same claims on the merits.
• Freeman and Clarabelle Gray v. Fid. Acceptance Corp.
  634 F.2d 226· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-12 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction unwarranted by the record of delay in this case.
• Medeiros v. United States
  621 F.2d 468· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-28 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's action for lack of prosecution.
• McCUNE v. F. Alioto Fish Co.
  597 F.2d 1244· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-30 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that a settlement agreement mooted the plaintiff's claim against the shipowner, and that the plaintiff's claim against the manufacturer was barred by laches due to inexcusable delay and prejudice. The court also held that the shipowner's indemnity claim against the
• United States v. Gustav Wahl
  583 F.2d 285· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  Literal compliance with Rule 3, F.R.Civ.P., by filing a complaint is sufficient to interrupt the running of a federal statute of limitations, even if service of process is delayed.
• Green v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  572 F.2d 628· 8th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the claims asserted in the second lawsuit were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) due to the prior litigation between the same parties concerning the same underlying contractual relationship and alleged breaches.
• Cherry v. Brown-Frazier-Whitney
  548 F.2d 965· D.C. Cir.· 1976-11-11 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute and in denying the motion to set aside the dismissal.
• Sundstrand Corp. v. Standard Kollsman Indus., Inc.
  488 F.2d 807· 7th Cir.· 1973-10-18 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the trial judge erred in limiting the scope of the complaint and in dismissing Huarisa's counterclaim without a hearing on damages. A new trial is ordered for the fraud claim, and the counterclaim is remanded for a damages assessment.
• Ramsey v. The United Mine Workers OF Am.
  481 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove an antitrust conspiracy, holding that the district judge's findings were not clearly erroneous and that his prior statement regarding a potential conspiracy under a preponderance standard was dict
• Redac Project 6426, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  412 F.2d 1043· 2d Cir.· 1969-06-16 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs' action with prejudice due to their repeated delays and in issuing a permanent injunction against further actions seeking injunctive relief.
• Merritt M. Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. of Moline
  261 F.2d 121· 8th Cir.· 1958-11-20 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that repeated, baseless lawsuits can be enjoined, and prior judicial decisions barred further litigation on the dealership agreement.
• Huber v. Am. President Lines
  240 F.2d 778· 2d Cir.· 1957-02-06 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that the district judge had the power to dismiss the case on the merits under Rule 41(b) and that the findings of unseaworthiness and negligence were not clearly erroneous.
• Barr v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
  149 F.2d 634· 9th Cir.· 1945-05-28 ·cited 14×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court has the power to adjudicate a jury-waived case on the merits after the plaintiff presents their evidence.
• Barger v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
  130 F.2d 401· D.C. Cir.· 1942-04-20 ·cited 14×
  A court may dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute, either under Rule 41(b) or its inherent power, and such dismissal will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
• Risinger v. Ohio Bureau OF Workers' Comp. & Barbara Riley
  883 F.2d 475· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 13×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court clearly erred in finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of a racially hostile work environment, reversing the dismissal and remanding for further proceedings.
• United States v. State OF Ariz.
  214 F.2d 389· 9th Cir.· 1954-06-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the third-party complaint should be affirmed because Arizona law does not permit one tort-feasor to recover contribution from another for the same injury, absent a contract.
• Harris v. Reginald Callwood & Daisy Callwood
  844 F.2d 1254· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 12×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  The court held that dismissal under Rule 41(b) was improper without adequate notice to the pro se litigant that failure to appear at a conference could result in dismissal.
• Henderson Duval Houghton v. Osborne
  834 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-14 ·cited 12×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
• Williams v. Brown & Root, Inc.
  828 F.2d 325· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to set aside a dismissal for failure to prosecute, as the attorney's inadvertent mistake did not constitute sufficiently unique circumstances for relief.
• Kimmel v. Tex. Commerce Bank
  817 F.2d 39· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-27 ·cited 12×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, even if the court did not explicitly state it was on the merits.
• Bituminous Constr., Inc. v. Rucker Enters., Inc.
  816 F.2d 965· 4th Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 12×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A defendant who presents evidence after their Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss is denied waives the right to appeal the denial, and the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed based on the entire record.
• Earley R. Woodmore v. Git-N-Go
  790 F.2d 1497· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-20 ·cited 12×·via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(B)
  A trial court must explain why dismissal is the appropriate sanction when a case is dismissed, especially if refiling is barred by the statute of limitations.
• Zaddack v. A.B. Dick Co.
  773 F.2d 147· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-11 ·cited 12×·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 failure to prosecute, nor in conditioning reinstatement on the payment of attorney fees.