Statute Of Limitations Accrual

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

• Dore v. Kleppe
  522 F.2d 1369· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the statute of limitations and res judicata did not bar the class action challenging the SBA's interpretation of the loan forgiveness provision, and that the SBA lacked discretion to interpret the Act contrary to its clear language.
• American-Foreign S.S. Corp. v. United States
  265 F.2d 136· 2d Cir.· 1958-07-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a retired judge who participated in an in banc hearing before retirement remains competent to participate in the decision thereafter reached, and that the case should be remanded for determination of jurisdiction and merits without constraint from prior preced
• Karantsalis v. City of Miami Springs
  17 F.4th 1316· 11th Cir.· 2021-11-12 ·cited 21×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims as time-barred, finding the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the plaintiff's disability progressed to the point where he was actually denied ac
• Snyder v. United States
  717 F.2d 1193· 8th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a claim for permanent pain resulting from negligent performance of a cordotomy is a question of fact not resolvable by summary judgment, while claims related to the necessity of the cordotomy due to misdiagnosis are time-barred.
• Fernandez v. Chardon
  648 F.2d 765· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-08 ·cited 20×
  The statute of limitations for wrongful demotion or discharge claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 accrues at the time the demotion or discharge takes effect, not when the employee receives advance notice.
• DE Witt v. United States
  593 F.2d 276· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-26 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision, finding the claim barred by the statute of limitations.
• Bergschneider v. Denver
  446 F.2d 569· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts to toll the statute of limitations, and thus the dismissal was improper.
• Baldwin v. Loew's Inc.
  312 F.2d 387· 7th Cir.· 1963-01-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs' antitrust claims because the relevant period for determining the statute's commencement was the date of the initial injury (lease execution), not subsequent lease renewals or the final disposition of a related
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ciccone
  123 So. 3d 604· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-08-14 ·cited 19×
  This appeal concerns an Engle progeny tobacco case where R.J. Reynolds challenges a judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages to the estate of a deceased smoker. The court upheld the jury's finding of Engle class membership and affirmed the compensatory damages award bu
• Joleen Chrestensen v. Eurogest, Inc.
  906 So. 2d 343· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-07-13 ·cited 19×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a dismissal of a deficiency judgment action, holding that the statute of limitations for deficiency judgments begins to run from the date of the foreclosure judgment and sale, not from the date of the underlying mortgage default. This
• Perez-Abreu, Zamora & De La Fe, P.A. v. Taracido
  790 So. 2d 1051· Fla.· 2001-07-12 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between two precedents regarding when a legal malpractice cause of action accrues in transactional cases. The Court held that in malpractice actions related to underlying judicial proceedings, the statute of limitations does not begin
• Woodall v. Travelers Indem. Co.
  699 So. 2d 1361· Fla.· 1997-10-02 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an underinsured motorist claim accrues on the date of the accident under State Farm v. Kilbreath, and that an insurance policy's no-action and exhaustion clauses requiring settlement with the tortfeasor's liability carrier before claiming under
• McCUNE v. The City OF Grand Rapids
  842 F.2d 903· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a section 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury, and that continuing incarceration is an effect, not a continuing tort.
• George Alexopulos by his next friend Marguerite Alexopulos and Marguerite Alexopulos v. Riles
  784 F.2d 1408· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) provides the sole remedy for denial of educational rights, and that claims for compensatory education are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and statutes of limitations.
• Clifford v. United States
  738 F.2d 977· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 18×
  The statute of limitations did not run during the time the plaintiff was comatose and no guardian had been appointed, as the alleged malpractice prevented him from knowing of his injury.
• Avery v. The United States
  330 F.2d 640· Ct. Cl.· 1964-04-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the introduction of larger, noisier aircraft constituted a new taking of an avigation easement over Group A parcels and parcel 32, but that physical invasion by sound waves over Groups C, D, and E did not constitute a compensable taking.
• Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church OF Cyprus & The Republic of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts, Inc.
  917 F.2d 278· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for replevin does not accrue until the owner discovers the property's location and possessor, especially when the possessor lacks good faith.
• Sch. Bd. OF Seminole Cnty. v. GAF Corp.
  413 So. 2d 1208· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-04-14 ·cited 17×
  The School Board of Seminole County appealed adverse summary judgments in three consolidated cases against architect Kelley for negligent design of school roofs that leaked and required replacement. The court reversed, holding that whether the School Board discovered or should ha
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  222 So. 2d 58· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-04-22 ·cited 17×
  Continental Casualty Company appeals a summary judgment in favor of Florida Power & Light Company, which sought to recover defense costs from a third-party lawsuit that Continental allegedly breached its duty to defend. The court held that Continental was contractually bound to d
• Brooks Tropicals, Inc. v. Alcides Acosta
  959 So. 2d 288· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-04-18 ·cited 16×
  Brooks Tropicals appeals a jury verdict awarding Acosta $335,515 plus prejudgment interest for breach of oral contract, fraud in the inducement, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty related to the settlement of a Benlate products liability suit. The appellate court reverses, findi
• GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Graci
  849 So. 2d 1196· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-07-23 ·cited 16×
  GEICO appeals the denial of its motion to change venue from St. Lucie County to Martin County in an uninsured motorist claim. The court holds that although Graci's suit is technically on the insurance contract, it is not for breach of contract but rather for determination of dama
• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. The United States
  923 F.2d 830· Fed. Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the two-year limitation for refund requests under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act begins to run from the date of the original royalty payment, not from the date of a subsequent judicial determination that the payment was excessive.
• Rodriguez v. Banco Central
  917 F.2d 664· 1st Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for civil RICO claims accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of their injury, aligning with the majority view, and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on other claims due to lack of jurisdiction.
• Johnson v. Gen. Elec.
  840 F.2d 132· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while Count II was not time-barred, it failed to plead a Title VII violation with sufficient particularity. Count III was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Rosales v. United States
  824 F.2d 799· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act were not time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations because the claims did not accrue until the plaintiffs discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, both the injury and its cause.
• Stockman v. LaCROIX
  790 F.2d 584· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's fraud claim was untimely filed under Wisconsin's statute of limitations, as the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to trigger the limitations period more than six years before filing suit.
• Cowgill v. Raymark Indus., Inc.
  780 F.2d 324· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because material issues of fact remain regarding when the decedent knew or should have known of his asbestos-related injury, and that the statute of limitations for both survival and wrongful death claims runs from that
• Mann v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.
  741 F.2d 79· 4th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 16×
  Under Texas law, a tort cause of action for an injury caused by a defective product accrues when the plaintiff learns, or reasonably should have learned, the cause of her illness, not merely when she learns she is ill.
• Gustafson v. The Cornelius Co. & the United Steelworkers of Am. & United Steelworkers of Am. Local Union No. 15199
  724 F.2d 75· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a hybrid § 301/fair representation claim is governed by the six-month statute of limitations found in § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Fleetwing Corp. v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  726 F.2d 768· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1983-12-22 ·cited 16×
  A purchaser's cause of action for overcharges due to misclassification accrues when first overcharged, not upon each subsequent overcharge.
• Roberts v. Casey
  413 So. 2d 1226· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-04-21 ·cited 16×
  Parents of a child who suffered brain damage from meningitis sought damages against her pediatrician and hospital. The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing their claim as barred by the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice, holding that the limitations per
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Ada Rojas
  409 So. 2d 1166· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-02-16 ·cited 16×
  An insurer's indemnity claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the indemnity liability is satisfied by payment.
• Reginald v. Schmidt
  555 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the statute of limitations had not run on the contract and promissory estoppel claims, and that summary judgment was improperly granted on the fraud claim.
• Stoudenmire v. Fla. Loan Co., Inc.
  117 So. 2d 500· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-01-26 ·cited 16×
  Stoudenmire sued Florida Loan Company for breach of an oral agreement to repurchase preferred stock within fourteen days of notice. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the three-year statute of limitations for oral contracts, holding the action was barred because th
• Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Barbanell
  100 So. 3d 152· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-10-17 ·cited 15×
  Philip Morris appealed a wrongful death judgment in favor of the estate of Shirley Barbanell, claiming the statute of limitations barred the claims. The court affirmed the trial judgment, holding that knowledge of a smoking-related respiratory disease does not trigger the statute
• Throneburg v. Boose
  659 So. 2d 1134· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-08-02 ·cited 15×
  The court reversed the trial judge's dismissal of a legal malpractice complaint for statute of limitations expiration. The court held that the limitations period does not begin to run until the client suffers actual, redressable harm from legal services, not merely potential harm
• Jastremski v. United States
  737 F.2d 666· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-19 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court's findings regarding the statute of limitations, proximate cause, and damages were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment.
• Raymond v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  556 F.2d 628· 1st Cir.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court properly applied the discovery rule standard to the undisputed facts, finding the action was brought within the statute of limitations.
• Codding v. Phillips
  296 So. 2d 554· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-04-23 ·cited 15×
  Codding sued Phillips for breach of a franchise agreement and fraudulent misrepresentation. The trial court granted summary judgment to Phillips based on the statute of limitations for fraud claims, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Codding's claims were barred becau
• Davis v. Birr
  839 F.2d 1369· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's section 10(b) action was barred by the statute of limitations because he knew or should have known of the alleged fraud by February 1983.
• Conquistador Condo. Viii Ass'n, Inc. v. Conquistador Corp.
  500 So. 2d 346· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-01-07 ·cited 14×
  The Conquistador Condominium Association sued for negligent construction of a mansard roof, but the trial court granted summary judgment based on Florida's four-year statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the association had constructive notice of the
• Airport Sign Corp. v. Dade Cnty. & Richard Judy
  400 So. 2d 828· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-07-07 ·cited 14×
  Airport Sign Corporation appealed the dismissal of its complaint against Dade County for damages caused by county-planted landscaping that obstructed a billboard's visibility and caused loss of an advertising contract. The court held that the statute of limitations for tort claim
• Fremont Indem. Co. v. Carey
  796 So. 2d 504· Fla.· 2001-08-30 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit regarding when the statute of limitations begins to run for legal malpractice claims arising from errors in litigation defense. The Court held that the limitations period does not commence until the
• Vaughter v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  817 F.2d 685· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the pilots' claims accrued in 1965 when Eastern assumed funding of the pension plan, thus barring claims under ERISA and the statute of limitations.
• Larry Gilbert in Bankr. of Juv. World, Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading
  219 So. 2d 84· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-02-18 ·cited 13×
  This case concerns whether an insurance company's refusal to defend a claim constitutes a breach of contract that triggers the statute of limitations, or if the statute of limitations begins to run only after the insured's liability is finally determined. The court held that the
• R.R. v. New Life Cmty. Church of CMA, Inc.
  303 So. 3d 916· Fla.· 2020-10-01 ·cited 12×
  Courts must apply the statutory framework governing accrual and tolling in chapter 95, Florida Statutes, and cannot adopt judge-made delayed accrual rules for minors' tort claims. A minor's negligence and respondeat superior claims accrue when the last element of the cause of act
• Heckman v. City OF Oakland Park
  644 So. 2d 525· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-09-14 ·cited 12×
  The Heckmans appealed a summary judgment dismissing their cross-claims against the City of Oakland Park based on the statute of limitations. The court affirmed dismissal of two counts based on a February 17, 1988 accrual date, but reversed and remanded a third count involving an
• N. Cal. Retail Clerks Unions & Food Emp'rs Joint Pension Tr. Fund v. Jumbo Mkts., Inc.
  906 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the existence of a fiduciary duty between the employer and trustees is not relevant to determining when the statute of limitations accrued for the trustees' cause of action.
• Fidler v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  714 F.2d 192· 1st Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations because she knew or should have known of the causal relationship between her injuries and the defendant's product more than three years before filing suit.
• Sibyl Harrison v. United States
  708 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for the Federal Tort Claims Act claim did not begin to accrue until the plaintiff obtained her medical records, as she lacked the requisite knowledge of her injury's cause prior to that time.