Statute Of Limitations Accrual

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

• Moore v. Morris
  475 So. 2d 666· Fla.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 896×
  In this medical malpractice case arising from complications during childbirth, the Florida Supreme Court holds that summary judgment was improper because material factual disputes exist regarding when the parents had notice of negligence or injury. The decision establishes that e
• Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Ford
  92 So. 2d 160· Fla.· 1955-10-19 ·cited 109×
  An employee of Seaboard Air Line Railroad developed occupational contact dermatitis from chromate compounds in a rust inhibitor supplied by his employer. The court held that the three-year statute of limitations under the Federal Employers' Liability Act did not begin running unt
• Sondra L. McKENNA and James R. McKenna v. Ortho Pharm. Corp.
  622 F.2d 657· 3d Cir.· 1980-03-18 ·cited 105×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in their interpretation of Ohio's legislative and judicial roles regarding statutes of limitation.
• Creviston v. Gen. Motors Corp. & J. W. Whitesides
  225 So. 2d 331· Fla.· 1969-07-02 ·cited 86×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that in personal injury cases based on breach of warranty for defective products, the three-year statute of limitations begins to run from when the defect was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, not from the date of purchase. This
• Hungerford v. United States
  307 F.2d 99· 9th Cir.· 1962-08-08 ·cited 84×
  The dissenting judge believes that the accrual of a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act is governed by state law, not federal law.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Kunbok LEE and Gisun Lee
  678 So. 2d 818· Fla.· 1996-08-22 ·cited 78×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations for an action based on an insurer's failure to pay personal injury protection (PIP) benefits begins to run from the date of the insurer's breach of contract, not from the date of the accident. This decision resolved a
• Davis v. Monahan
  832 So. 2d 708· Fla.· 2002-11-07 ·cited 74×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among district courts regarding whether the delayed discovery doctrine applies to claims for breach of fiduciary duty, civil theft, conspiracy, conversion, and unjust enrichment arising from misappropriation of assets by family member
• Lavellee v. Carlo Listi
  611 F.2d 1129· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-15 ·cited 74×
  The court held that while a state statute of limitations applies to a § 1983 claim, federal law governs the accrual of the cause of action, requiring awareness of the injury and its cause.
• Compton v. IDE
  732 F.2d 1429· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RICO were time-barred, and that the Bivens claims were properly dismissed via summary judgment.
• Celotex Corp. v. Copeland
  471 So. 2d 533· Fla.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 59×
  In this asbestos-related injury case, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt the market share theory of liability for asbestos cases, holding that because the plaintiff was able to identify specific manufacturers of the products that caused his injury, traditional tort causa
• Marquis v. Chrysler Corp.
  577 F.2d 624· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-29 ·cited 59×
  The court held that Chrysler Corporation could not be held liable under the Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act due to lack of contractual privity, and that while consistently failing to meet Minimum Sales Responsibility (MSR) does not automatically preclude a claim, the jury co
• Portis v. United States
  483 F.2d 670· 4th Cir.· 1973-08-29 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for the hearing loss claim did not begin to run until 1969, when the cause of the deafness was first diagnosed as related to the 1963 malpractice.
• Reilly v. United States
  513 F.2d 147· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-31 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations because she discovered, or should have discovered, the alleged malpractice more than two years before filing her claim.
• Celotex Corp. v. Carmella Meehan
  523 So. 2d 141· Fla.· 1988-03-17 ·cited 56×
  The Florida Supreme Court clarified the application of Florida's borrowing statute (§ 95.10) to asbestos-related personal injury claims by adopting a "significant relationships" test rather than focusing solely on where the injury was discovered. The Court held that forum shoppin
• Mullinax v. E.B. McELHENNEY
  817 F.2d 711· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-26 ·cited 55×
  Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, but claims accrue when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury and the perpetrator.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  436 So. 2d 976· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-08-02 ·cited 51×
  Allstate Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment dismissing its subrogation claim against Metropolitan Dade County on statute of limitations grounds. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that in contractual subrogation actions, the statute of limitations b
• Brown v. United States
  353 F.2d 578· 9th Cir.· 1965-11-16 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the appellants' claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act were barred by the two-year limitations period because the parents discovered, or should have discovered, the alleged malpractice more than two years before filing suit.
• Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cnty.
  801 F.2d 1143· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-03 ·cited 50×
  The court held that Norco's federal and state claims were not barred by the statute of limitations because they did not accrue until the county made a final decision on the plat application, and that the claims were not barred by res judicata because the prior mandamus action cou
• Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank v. Edgerly
  121 So. 2d 417· Fla.· 1960-06-08 ·cited 47×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when a bank wrongfully pays a check bearing a forged endorsement, the statute of limitations begins to run from when the depositor discovers the forgery, not from when the check was paid. This places the burden on depositors to discover forged
• Glynn Richard Davis v. United States
  642 F.2d 328· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the record did not support the majority's assertion that the appellant was aware of the vaccine as the likely cause of injury by a specific date.
• Hanna v. Fletcher
  231 F.2d 469· D.C. Cir.· 1956-01-19 ·cited 42×
  A contractor performing repairs owes a duty of care to foreseeable users of the repaired property, and a landlord can be liable for an unsafe condition created by their contractor.
• Acri v. Berg
  781 F.2d 1393· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-06 ·cited 41×
  The court holds that a union member must prove that had the strike continued, the employer would have acceded to the union's requests to establish liability.
• Nemmers v. United States
  795 F.2d 628· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-11 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the statute of limitations begins to run when a reasonable person would have discovered a potential cause of injury, not based on the plaintiff's subjective understanding or priorities. It also held that the district court must make specific findings regarding
• Yorger v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
  733 F.2d 1215· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 40×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, specifically concerning the delivery date of the asbestos product.
• Fed. Ins. Co. & McMerit Constr. Co. v. The Sw. Fla. Ret. Ctr., Inc.
  707 So. 2d 1119· Fla.· 1998-02-12 ·cited 37×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that performance bonds for construction projects are liable for latent defects discovered after substantial completion, but that claims against sureties are time-barred under the five-year statute of limitations in section 95.11(2)(b), which accrues
• Keystone Ins. Co. v. Houghton
  863 F.2d 1125· 3d Cir.· 1988-12-15 ·cited 35×
  The statute of limitations for a civil RICO claim accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known that all elements of the RICO cause of action existed, or from the last predicate act or injury within the same pattern of racketeering activity.
• Freeman v. Local Union NO. 135 Chauffeurs
  746 F.2d 1316· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-26 ·cited 35×
  A union's duty of fair representation does not extend to filing a suit to vacate an arbitrator's award when the collective bargaining agreement does not grant the union exclusive authority for such actions.
• Clutter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  646 F.2d 1151· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-07 ·cited 34×
  Under Ohio law, causes of action for insidious diseases like asbestosis, caused by asbestos exposure, accrue when the disease manifests itself, not upon the date of last exposure.
• 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.
• Cent. Home Tr. Co. OF Elizabeth v. Lippincott
  392 So. 2d 931· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-12-17 ·cited 33×
  Central Home Trust Company appealed a summary judgment dismissing its suit against the Lippincotts on a promissory note, arguing Florida's five-year statute of limitations barred the claim because the bank charged off the debt in 1974. The appellate court reversed, holding that t
• Bridgford v. United States
  550 F.2d 978· 4th Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a medical malpractice claim against the government accrues when the claimant discovers, or should have discovered, not only the negligent act but also the resulting harm, and that the suit was not barred by the statute of limitations due to 'blameless ignoranc
• McGUIRE v. Baker
  421 F.2d 895· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for damages were barred by the statute of limitations, as they accrued when the property was sold and leased, and the plaintiff knew of the wrong at that time.
• Mathis v. The United States
  391 F.2d 938· Ct. Cl.· 1968-03-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a claim for illegal military discharge accrues at the time of removal, not at the end of administrative proceedings, and that optional administrative remedies do not toll the statute of limitations.
• Greene v. Bursey
  733 So. 2d 1111· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-05-19 ·cited 28×
  Douglas Greene appeals summary judgment on a personal guaranty of a promissory note. The court affirms that the assignee of the underlying note had the right to enforce the guaranty but reverses on statute of limitations and laches grounds, finding material factual issues remaine
• Davidson v. Bd. OF Governors OF State Colleges & Univs. FOR W. Ill. Univ.
  920 F.2d 441· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the district court should not have dismissed the suit solely on timeliness without considering equitable tolling, the complaint fails to state a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because it does not allege that the university discrimin
• Kington v. United States
  396 F.2d 9· 6th Cir.· 1968-06-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for negligent death accrued at the time of death, not upon discovery of the cause of death, and was therefore time-barred by the FTCA's two-year limitation period.
• Hester v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs
  818 F.2d 1537· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-12 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a union member's claim under LMRDA's bill of rights accrues when the member receives notice of the union's violation, not upon exhaustion of internal union remedies.
• Copeland v. Armstrong Cork Co.
  447 So. 2d 922· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-03-06 ·cited 27×
  The court held that in asbestos products liability cases involving creeping diseases like asbestosis, the statute of limitations accrues when the accumulated effects of the deleterious substance manifest themselves in a way providing evidence of causal relationship to the product
• Seguros Tepeyac v. Jernigan
  410 F.2d 718· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-15 ·cited 27×
  The statute of limitations for a Stowers doctrine claim begins to run from the date the insured makes a payment on the judgment against them, not from the date the judgment was rendered, because the cause of action accrues upon actual injury (payment).
• Renfroe v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  686 F.2d 642· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a cause of action originates where the damage is sustained and capable of ascertainment, and accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known the cause of the injury.
• Martin v. Merola
  532 F.2d 191· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-05 ·cited 26×
  A prosecutor may be held liable under § 1983 for making public statements that are beyond the scope of official duties and known or should have been known to violate a defendant's constitutional rights to a fair trial.
• Perez v. Laredo Junior Coll.
  706 F.2d 731· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that most of the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations as they were single acts, but the claim for continuing denial of equal protection might not be barred and requires further proceedings.
• Olson v. Theresa C.M. Johnson
  961 So. 2d 356· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-06-29 ·cited 24×
  Charles Olson appealed a summary judgment dismissing his malicious prosecution and conspiracy claim against Theresa Johnson and two other women who filed a stalking complaint against him in 1996. The appellate court reversed, holding that Johnson failed to establish entitlement t
• Dietz v. Consol. OIL & GAS, Inc.
  643 F.2d 1088· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or denial of a directed verdict, affirming the jury's verdict for the plaintiffs.
• Gustav L. Lund and Harriet Bernice Lund v. Cook
  354 So. 2d 940· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the statute of limitations did not bar the appellants' cause of action because it was filed within four years of their discovery of the defects.
• Nat'l Fam. Ins. Co. v. Exch. Nat'l Bank OF Chicago
  474 F.2d 237· 7th Cir.· 1973-02-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of limitations because the plaintiff knew or should have known of its cause of action more than five years prior to filing suit, and any right to a jury trial on the limitations issue was waived.
• Lenahan v. Russell L. Forkey, P.A.
  702 So. 2d 610· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-12-17 ·cited 22×
  In this legal malpractice appeal, the court reversed summary judgment granted to defendant attorney Forkey, holding that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the client's dismissal of a Virginia lawsuit constituted an abandonment precluding recovery or whether
• Janikowski v. Bendix Corp.
  823 F.2d 945· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a new cause of action.
• Merrill Stevens DRY Dock Co. v. G & J Invs. Corp., Inc.
  506 So. 2d 30· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-04-14 ·cited 22×
  Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Company appeals a judgment dismissing its trespass action against G & J Investments Corporation based on statute of limitations. The court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations for trespass does not begin running until a property owner revokes
• Waits v. United States
  611 F.2d 550· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because the claim did not accrue until the plaintiff discovered, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the specific acts of negligence by the VA hospital.