73 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 622 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the FOIA claim against the EEOC for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but reversed the dismissal of employment discrimination claims against Nationwide, remanding for further proceedings.
-
752 F.2d 477·
9th Cir.·
1985-02-01
·cited 12×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, and the district court's dismissal was proper.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove her individual claims of employment discrimination based on race and sex, and also failed to establish a class-wide claim of discrimination.
-
The Tax Court abused its discretion by dismissing the case for failure to prosecute without considering the appellant's explanation for non-compliance.
-
The court held that the trial judge, acting as factfinder in a Rule 41(b) dismissal, was not required to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
-
The court held that a real estate sales contract was not a 'security' under federal or state statutes, and that common law negligence and fraud claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
-
-
A dismissal for failure to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, or 1985 is a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, not on the merits.
-
The court held that a prior New Jersey federal court judgment dismissing a real estate broker's claim for lack of a New Jersey license was a bar to a subsequent action in New York federal court on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the misuse claim but vacated the dismissal of the patent infringement claim due to the trial court's failure to make adequate findings of fact.
-
-
The filing of a complaint in a federal antitrust case is sufficient, without more, to toll the applicable federal statute of limitations.
-
268 F.2d 648·
8th Cir.·
1959-07-20
·cited 12×
The court held that the prior dismissal order, based on the Board's failure to comply with a subpoena and its own procedures, did not operate as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(b).
-
-
The court held that a dismissal of a counterclaim under the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure operates as an adjudication on the merits and is therefore a final, appealable order.
-
The court held that unconditional dismissal with prejudice was an excessive sanction for failure to prosecute when the district court had unduly delayed ruling on a pending motion to quash service of process.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1) when counsel failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for failing to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss.
-
The court held that while the district court was justified in finding that white employees should be joined under Rule 19(a), its remedy of staying the action was improper; the court should have ordered joinder.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting the defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal because the expert medical testimony did not present a vital inconsistency that would neutralize the plaintiff's case.
-
The court held that the dismissal was improper because the condition for reinstating the case was impossible to fulfill, rendering the subsequent dismissal irrational.
-
The court held that the district court erred by applying an outdated standard for reasonable reliance in a fraud claim, and must reconsider the case under current Florida law.
-
The court held that a dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) bars appellate review of earlier interlocutory rulings, regardless of the plaintiff's motives.
-
The court held that dismissal and sanctions were appropriate due to repeated noncompliance with discovery orders, but remanded for recalculation of monetary sanctions to exclude fees not directly caused by disobedience.
-
The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear claims that state administration of unemployment programs violates federal law or the Constitution, even if individual benefit determinations are subject to state review.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to prove he was the procuring cause of the advertisements for which he sought commissions, and thus was not entitled to them.
-
The court held that dismissing a pro se plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with a pretrial order, without a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
-
The appeal was dismissed because the notice of appeal was filed prematurely while a post-judgment motion was still pending in the district court.
-
The court held that the District Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were too conclusory and lacked coherence, preventing meaningful appellate review.
-
The court held that dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion without a clear record of egregious delay and findings on lesser sanctions.
-
The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers with two employees, even if they do not work simultaneously, and a willful violation extends the statute of limitations to three years. Evidence for employees named in the pretrial order but not the complaint can be admitted, but
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for want of prosecution, as the plaintiff's persistent delays and inability to maintain counsel justified the drastic sanction.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the appellant's action sua sponte without sufficient findings or consideration of less severe sanctions.
-
667 F.2d 600·
7th Cir.·
1981-12-10
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's suit as a sanction for willful failure to comply with discovery requests.
-
The court held that statistical evidence, buttressed by anecdotal proof of discouraged applications, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment regarding promotions and transfers, reversing the district court's dismissal. However, the court affirmed the
-
Accepting benefits from a conciliation agreement may waive the right to sue on all claims, but this waiver is only effective if the acceptance was voluntary and knowing.
-
The court held that parts of the government regulation governing bobcat pelt exports are invalid because the Scientific Authority's guidelines lacked adequate scientific data to determine "no detriment" to the species' survival. The court also reversed the dismissal of certain cl
-
The court affirmed the jury's award of monetary damages for breach of contract but remanded the equitable claims for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
-
The court held that the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition within the statutory four-month period tolls the statute of limitations for preferential transfers, even if summons is not issued immediately thereafter.
-
The court held that the sua sponte dismissal of a case for want of prosecution, without evidence of dilatory action and despite the case being ready for trial, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case entirely, as it retained jurisdiction over Atlantic's cross-claim against co-defendants, but that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Atlantic's claim against the co-defen
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying intervention, denying the motion to add a party defendant, and dismissing the action for failure to prosecute.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to comply with discovery orders, as the plaintiff's actions demonstrated bad faith and willful refusal to produce documents and answer interrogatories.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to provide timely notice of breach of warranty as required by the Illinois Uniform Sales Act, and thus could not claim breach of implied warranty or non-conformity to sample.
-
209 F.2d 794·
D.C. Cir.·
1954-01-07
·cited 10×
-
179 F.2d 133·
7th Cir.·
1950-01-19
·cited 10×
The court held that the defendant's stipulation regarding the correctness of demurrage charges, if computed under a lawful tariff, coupled with the plaintiff's proof of a lawful tariff, precluded the defendant from later challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding car t
-
The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in applying the standard for a directed verdict to a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(b).
-
The court granted the defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs, awarding $82,500 in fees and $35,875.85 in costs, totaling $118,375.88.
-
The court held that while dismissal of most claims was proper, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the remaining claims without first warning the pro se plaintiff of the potential sanction, but later affirmed the dismissal upon learning a warning was given.
-
A federal court's dismissal of a claim on statute of limitations grounds operates as a judgment on the merits, subject to claim preclusion in a subsequent federal action between the same parties.