Statute Of Limitations Accrual

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

• Shaw v. The United States
  622 F.2d 520· Ct. Cl.· 1980-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Commissioners had the authority to reopen and reverse a prior decision, that the plaintiff's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations due to mandatory exhaustion of administrative remedies, and that the plaintiff's termination was procedurally pr
• Pioneer Co., Inc. v. Talon, Inc.
  462 F.2d 1106· 8th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute of limitations began to run on September 4, 1964, when Pioneer's orders were refused due to a continuing conspiracy, not on the earlier date of alleged termination notice.
• Owens v. White
  342 F.2d 817· 9th Cir.· 1965-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Idaho Supreme Court's adoption of the 'discovery doctrine' applies to malpractice claims, meaning the statute of limitations begins to run when the patient knows or should know of the injury and its cause, and this is a preliminary legal question for the c
• The Cuban Truck & Equip. Co. v. The United States
  333 F.2d 873· Ct. Cl.· 1964-06-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's claim for a taking, as the taking occurred by mid-May 1951, making the suit filed in May 1957 untimely. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove it had acquired title to the trucks under German l
• Fattore v. The United States
  312 F.2d 797· Ct. Cl.· 1963-02-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by the statute of limitations because it accrued when they rejected the government's voucher, and that they failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the Secretary in determining the reimbursement amount.
• Riverwalk AT Sunrise Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Biscayne Painting Corp.
  199 So. 3d 348· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-08-10 ·cited 5×
  The Association appealed the dismissal of its negligence claim against Sherwin-Williams as time-barred. The court held that the cause of action accrued when damages occurred in 2009, not when the negligent acts occurred in 2005, making the 2012 complaint timely under Florida's fo
• MS Ex Rel. Soltys v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. BD.
  636 F. Supp. 2d 1317· M.D. Fla.· 2009-07-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant teacher's motion for summary judgment should be denied because the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support claims of constitutional deprivation under § 1983 and state law torts, and the defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity
• BDI Constr. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
  995 So. 2d 576· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-10-15 ·cited 5×
  BDI Construction Company appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim against Hartford Fire Insurance Company on a performance bond, arguing the statute of limitations had not expired. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the statute of limitations on a performa
• Eldred v. Reber
  639 So. 2d 1086· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-07-15 ·cited 5×
  For litigational malpractice actions involving appeals, the statute of limitations begins to accrue when the appellate decision is 'rendered' as defined by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g), not when the mandate is issued.
• Llano Fin. Grp., LLC v. Petit
  230 So. 3d 141· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-09-27 ·cited 4×
  Llano Financing Group sued appraiser Theodore Petit for negligent appraisal of a property in 2015, relying on an appraisal from 2004. The Florida First District Court of Appeal held that the four-year statute of limitations for negligence claims began when the original lender fun
• Hummer v. Adams Homes OF Nw. Fla., Inc.
  198 So. 3d 750· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-02-26 ·cited 4×
  Hummer appealed the dismissal of his defective drywall action against his home builder and drywall subcontractor. The court affirmed dismissal of property damage claims as barred by the statute of limitations but reversed dismissal of personal injury claims, finding the complaint
• Beyer v. City OF Marathon & The State of Fla.
  37 So. 3d 932· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-06-09 ·cited 4×
  Gordon and Molly Beyer challenged the City of Marathon's denial of their beneficial use determination (BUD) for Bamboo Key, an offshore island property that became unbuildable under the 1996 Comprehensive Plan's bird rookery designation. The trial court granted summary judgment b
• Anderson v. Mosher
  758 So. 2d 1177· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-05-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the statute of limitations on an oral loan payable on demand begins to run when the loan is made, not when demand for payment is made. The debtor's claim was barred because no demand was made within the three-year limitations period.
• Block v. First Blood Assocs.
  988 F.2d 344· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the investors' securities fraud claims were time-barred because they accrued in October 1982, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the defendants to amend their answer to plead the statute of limitations defense.
• United States v. Gottlieb
  948 F.2d 1128· 9th Cir.· 1991-11-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the SBA's cause of action to enforce the guaranty accrued upon demand for payment, not upon the SBA's acquisition of the note and guaranty.
• Hoesterey v. The City OF Cathedral City
  945 F.2d 317· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a claim alleging a failure to provide a pretermination hearing accrues when the employee has notice that the termination decision is final and will not be followed by further process, not merely when notified of the termination d
• Loewer v. N.Y. Life Ins.
  773 F. Supp. 1518· M.D. Fla.· 1991-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on the statute of limitations should be denied if the complaint, taken as true, does not conclusively show the claim is time-barred, and that a trustee not yet appointed is not an indispensable party.
• Beeman v. Island Breakers
  577 So. 2d 1341· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-01-01 ·cited 4×
  The Beemans appealed a trial court judgment declaring void a 99-year recreational lease escalation clause between themselves and Island Breakers condominium. The court held that while the escalation clause was unconscionable and void, the underlying lease with the base rental rat
• Cora M. Tripp v. Angelica Corp.
  921 F.2d 794· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a § 301 claim begins to run when the union decides not to pursue the grievance, not when the employee receives notice. The court also held that the appellant waived the slander and libel claim by not raising it on appeal.
• Cotter v. Eastern Conference OF Teamsters Retirement Plan
  898 F.2d 424· 4th Cir.· 1990-03-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plan administrator's interpretation requiring a formal claim for vested retirement benefits was an abuse of discretion and violated ERISA's nonforfeiture provisions. The court also held that the employee's claim was not time-barred.
• Chiropractic Coop. Ass'n OF Mich. v. Am. Med. Ass'n
  867 F.2d 270· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted for AMA, MSMS, and MMC, as genuine issues of material fact exist regarding their continued participation in the alleged conspiracy and antitrust injury. Summary judgment for JCAH, AHA, and the individual defendants was a
• Whitcomb v. Pension Dev. Co., Inc.
  808 F.2d 167· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred because they accrued in 1977, when they knew or reasonably should have known of the harm caused by the defendants' conduct, and not later as plaintiffs contended.
• City OF Orlando & Greater Orlando Aviation Auth. v. Williams
  493 So. 2d 15· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-07-24 ·cited 4×
  The City of Orlando and Greater Orlando Aviation Authority appealed a trial court judgment granting specific performance to Williams and Langford for a hotel lease dating to 1965. The appellate court reversed, holding that the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitati
• Simmons v. S.C. State Ports Auth.
  694 F.2d 63· 4th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the employees' claims for retroactive pension credit were time-barred, and that their subsequent motion to review the settlement compliance report was untimely.
• United States v. Hare
  618 F.2d 1085· 4th Cir.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for receiving a loan with favorable terms began to run when the loan was received, not when payments were made.
• Colonial Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  577 F.2d 106· 10th Cir.· 1978-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Automobile Dealer Franchise Act's "under control" provision presented a jury question regarding Ford Credit's liability, and that damages from continuing conduct under the Act could accrue within the limitation period, applying the Zenith Radio Corp. doctr
• Lashlee v. Sumner
  570 F.2d 107· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the plaintiff's claim of fraudulent concealment, which could toll the statute of limitations.
• Gulf Coast W. Oil Co. v. Trapp
  174 F.2d 339· 10th Cir.· 1949-04-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations because they failed to prove the fraud was discovered within the statutory period.
• John DOE 1 v. Archdiocese of Miami, Inc.
  360 So. 3d 778· Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-03-22 ·cited 3×
  The negligence claim is barred by the four-year statute of limitations under § 95.11(a)(3), which accrued at the time of injury in 2001. The IIED claim is not time-barred under § 95.11(9) because it is related to sexual battery of a victim under 16, and the Legislature abolished
• Mosher v. Anderson
  817 So. 2d 812· Fla.· 2002-04-25 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations for an oral loan payable on demand begins to run only when a demand for payment is made and the debtor fails to pay. This decision resolves a conflict between Florida's district courts and clarifies when a cause of ac
• Sellers v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  788 So. 2d 1086· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-06-13 ·cited 3×
  Kenneth and Sylvia Sellers appealed the dismissal of their negligence lawsuit against Miami-Dade County School Board for an injury Kenneth sustained in 1996. The court affirmed the dismissal because the Sellers failed to provide timely notice of their claim as required by Florida
• Bates v. C & S Adjusters, Inc.
  980 F.2d 865· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-02 ·cited 3×
  Venue is proper in a district where a debtor resides and to which a debt collector's demand for payment was forwarded, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(b)(2).
• Martin v. Constr. Laborer's Pension Tr. FOR S. Cal.
  947 F.2d 1381· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-28 ·cited 3×
  The dissent argues that the statute of limitations for declaratory and injunctive relief had not yet begun to run, and even if it had, equitable considerations should prevent the Trust from relying on it.
• Aluminum v. A.P. Green Refractories, Inc.
  895 F.2d 1053· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 3×
  A suit to compel arbitration of a collective bargaining agreement under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act is governed by the six-month limitation period found in section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Cornell v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
  841 F.2d 23· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Massachusetts discovery rule was correctly applied, barring the plaintiffs' claims as the statute of limitations had run.
• Granahan v. Pearson
  782 F.2d 30· 4th Cir.· 1985-11-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a patient's claim for infertility caused by a doctor's failure to remove an IUD is barred by the statute of limitations, as the injury accrued at the end of the continuous treatment period, not upon discovery of the infertility.
• Paul Holt Drilling, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  664 F.2d 252· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 3×
  The statute of limitations for an insurer's breach of its duty to defend begins to run when the insured first incurs legal expenses due to the insurer's refusal, not when the underlying litigation concludes.
• Hayes v. Reverse Mortg. Solutions
  260 So. 3d 391· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-11-21 ·cited 2×
  Appellant Judith Hayes challenges a foreclosure judgment on a reverse mortgage, arguing the action was time-barred under Florida's five-year statute of limitations. The court addresses an issue of first impression regarding when the statute of limitations begins to run for revers
• Lupola v. Lupola
  179 So. 3d 497· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-11-23 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff's negligence and product liability claims were barred by the maritime law statute of limitations. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument for equitable tolling, finding that her ignorance of her legal
• THE Clark Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Wentworth Plastering OF Boca Raton, Inc.
  840 So. 2d 357· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-03-05 ·cited 2×
  Clark Construction sought indemnification from a performance bond surety (Wausau) for costs arising from a subcontractor's failure to perform stucco work on the Broward Center for the Performing Arts. The trial court granted summary judgment to Wausau on statute of limitations gr
• Penagos v. Cap. Bank
  766 So. 2d 1089· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The statute of limitations for a certificate of deposit begins to run upon the date of written demand by the depositor after the certificate has matured.
• United States v. Reaves
  923 F. Supp. 1530· M.D. Fla.· 1996-02-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the unpermitted discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetlands constitutes a continuing violation of the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act, meaning the five-year statute of limitations has not yet begun to run.
• Wagner v. Flanagan
  629 So. 2d 113· Fla.· 1993-11-10 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations for defamation actions begins to run from the time of publication, not discovery, applying uniformly to both public and private defamation. The court rejected the defendant's argument that private defamation should ha
• Gnazzo v. G.D. Searle & Co.
  973 F.2d 136· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's product liability claim was time-barred by Connecticut's three-year statute of limitations because she discovered, or should have discovered, her injury and its causal connection to the IUD in 1981.
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. U.S. Dept. OF Labor
  969 F.2d 1400· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the 1972 amendments to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) should not be applied retroactively to create new liability for an employer based on an employee's injury that occurred before the amendments.
• A. Stucki Co. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.
  963 F.2d 360· Fed. Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the patent infringement damages limitation period and the RICO statute of limitations barred Stucki's claims against Buckeye.
• In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig. Arlene Maiorana v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
  964 F.2d 92· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's wrongful death claim based on a single accrual date for all defendants and in granting summary judgment on the loss of services and consortium claim due to insufficient causation evidence.
• Thurman v. Sears
  952 F.2d 128· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a former employee's claim under Texas' anti-retaliation statute accrued when he received unequivocal notice of his termination, not when he was later denied reinstatement.
• Hiram H. Hoelzer v. The City OF Stamford
  933 F.2d 1131· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The court applies New York law, considering the original owner's diligence in locating stolen art under the doctrine of laches, not the statute of limitations.
• Delbert Biddison v. City OF Chicago
  921 F.2d 724· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment taking claim was not ripe for adjudication because he failed to first pursue available state remedies for just compensation.