Statute Of Limitations Borrowing

55 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Short v. Belleville Shoe Mfg. Co.
  908 F.2d 1385· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-30 ·cited 54×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, expresses reservations about the principle of borrowing limitation periods from one statute for use with another that lacks its own.
• Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc. v. Crown Life Ins. Co.
  792 F.2d 341· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that federal law controls the characterization of civil RICO claims for statute of limitations purposes, and in Pennsylvania, the six-year residual statute of limitations applies to all civil RICO claims. The court also held that interference with a lawsuit constit
• Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv.
  823 F.2d 466· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the United States Arbitration Act (USAA) does not apply to labor arbitrations under the Postal Reorganization Act, and that the timeliness of suits to vacate arbitration awards should be governed by a uniform federal limitations period, borrowing the three-mon
• Pauk v. The Bd. OF Trs. OF the City Univ. OF NEW York
  654 F.2d 856· 2d Cir.· 1981-07-22 ·cited 41×
  The limitations period for actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is governed by N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2), which applies to liabilities imposed by statute.
• Ceres P'rs v. GEL Assocs.
  918 F.2d 349· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-08 ·cited 37×
  The Second Circuit adopted a uniform federal statute of limitations for federal securities claims, but affirmed the dismissal because the claims were time-barred under the adopted period.
• Fed'n OF Westinghouse Indep. Salaried Unions & Salaried Emps. Ass'n of the Baltimore Div. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  736 F.2d 896· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations under Section 10(b) of the NLRA applies to suits to compel arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, and that the underlying dispute regarding an employee's termination was arbitrable.
• Teamsters Union Local 315 v. Great W. Chem. Co.
  781 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations under § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act is the appropriate statute to borrow for actions to compel arbitration under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
• 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.
• Davis v. United Automobile
  765 F.2d 1510· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 27×
  The court held that suits brought under section 102 of the LMRDA alleging violations of section 101(a)(2) are subject to the six-month statute of limitations borrowed from section 10(b) of the NLRA.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Allied Prods. Corp.
  786 F.2d 1561· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations under § 10(b) of the NLRA applies to a union's straightforward § 301 claim to compel arbitration and applies retroactively.
• McCREEDY v. Local Union NO. 971
  809 F.2d 1232· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations from section 10(b) of the NLRA applies to both employees' hybrid section 301 claims and the union's action to compel arbitration, and that both claims were time-barred.
• Dep't OF Educ. v. Carl D.
  695 F.2d 1154· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-04 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the thirty-day limitations period of the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act is the appropriate statute of limitations for actions brought under EAHCA section 1415(e)(2) when the federal statute is silent.
• Smith v. City OF Chicago
  769 F.2d 408· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 23×
  The court held that contempt proceedings under the Shakman decree are subject to a 180-day statute of limitations, adopting the period from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Claf McCLAM v. Mayor Marion Barry
  697 F.2d 366· D.C. Cir.· 1983-01-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that D.C. Code § 12-309 applies to constitutional tort claims against the District, and that the one-year statute of limitations for assault applies to constitutional assault claims, barring the plaintiff's claim.
• Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. W. Elec. Co., Inc.
  860 F.2d 1137· 1st Cir.· 1988-11-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a six-month statute of limitations, borrowed from federal labor law, applies to suits to compel arbitration under Section 301 of the LMRA.
• Occidental Chem. Corp. v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union
  853 F.2d 1310· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-01 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred in applying the United States Arbitration Act (USAA) limitations period to a labor arbitration case, contrary to precedent and the USAA's own exclusionary language.
• Gladys Banks v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co.
  802 F.2d 1416· D.C. Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the reasoning in Section II of the majority opinion was flawed regarding the application of Wilson v. Garcia to section 1981 actions.
• J.W. Pruitt, Jr. v. Carpenters' Local Union NO. 225 OF the United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am.
  893 F.2d 1216· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a union member's state law claims against his union were preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA, allowing removal to federal court, but that the applicable statute of limitations should be borrowed from state law, not the NLRA's Section 10(b).
• Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Centor Contractors, Inc.
  831 F.2d 1309· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that defendants' challenges to the arbitration award were untimely, and that the partnership was a successor and alter ego of the original corporation, making the partners liable for the award.
• Schimmel v. Spillane
  819 F.2d 477· 4th Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the one-year Virginia statute of limitations was the appropriate period for EHA claims, not the shorter Virginia APA limitations, and that the school system was not required to fund placement in an unapproved private school.
• Monarch Long Beach Corp. v. Soft Drink Workers
  762 F.2d 228· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations from DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters does not apply to section 303 claims, and that state law should be used to determine the limitations period. The court also held that pendent state law claims arisi
• Adler v. The Educ. Dep't OF the State OF NEW York
  760 F.2d 454· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the four-month statute of limitations applicable to New York's Article 78 proceedings is the appropriate statute of limitations for actions brought under the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA).
• Abernathy v. United States Postal Serv.
  740 F.2d 612· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations under § 10(b) of the NLRA applies to actions challenging arbitration awards under the Postal Reorganization Act, but affirmed dismissal because the plaintiff failed to allege inadequate union representation, rendering the a
• Posadas de Puerto RICO Assocs., Inc. v. Asociacion de Empleados de Casino de Puerto RICO
  873 F.2d 479· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 13×
  The court held that Puerto Rico's 30-day statute of limitations for vacating arbitral awards is the most appropriate limitation period for suits brought under section 301 of the LMRA, as it aligns with federal labor policy objectives and is not significantly less appropriate than
• Robinson v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  777 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1985-11-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the six-month limitations period of section 10(b) of the NLRA should be borrowed and applied to claims brought under section 2, Fourth of the RLA, due to federal labor policy favoring uniformity and speed.
• Dist. Lodge 64, Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  949 F.2d 441· D.C. Cir.· 1991-11-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Ducane rule, which limits reinstatement of dismissed unfair labor practice charges, is a reasonable implementation of NLRA policy and can be applied retroactively, but remanded for clarification on the fraudulent concealment exception.
• West v. Conrail
  780 F.2d 361· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that for hybrid breach of contract/fair representation claims governed by Section 10(b) of the NLRA, both filing and service of process must be completed within the six-month limitations period.
• Johnson v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of Am.
  942 F.2d 1260· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the insurance policy in question does not contain a promise for the payment of money, and therefore the action is barred by the 5-year statute of limitations.
• Connors v. Hallmark & SON Coal Co.
  935 F.2d 336· D.C. Cir.· 1991-06-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims for delinquent ERISA contributions accrue when the trustees discover, or with due diligence should have discovered, the employer's underreporting and nonpayment, not at the time of the breach.
• Spiegler v. Dist. OF Columbia
  866 F.2d 461· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while a 30-day limitations period is appropriate for Education of the Handicapped Act claims, the District's failure to provide adequate notice of this period to the appellants bars its application in this case.
• Conley v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers
  810 F.2d 913· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations for unfair labor practice charges applies to this hybrid section 301 claim, and equitable tolling does not apply when an NLRB charge is filed.
• Phelan v. Fitzgerald
  973 F.2d 1050· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Title I of the LMRDA does not grant federal courts jurisdiction over suits brought by members of one union against a sister union or its officers. It also held that the federal six-month statute of limitations applies to duty of fair representation claims, but
• Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. S. Ry. Co.
  860 F.2d 1038· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-28 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Unions' action was time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations applicable to Railway Labor Act claims, borrowed from the National Labor Relations Act.
• Gonzalez v. Aloha Airlines, Inc.
  940 F.2d 1312· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations from the NLRA is inappropriate for EPP claims, and instead, the two-year statute of limitations from Hawaii state law should apply.
• Gen. Teamsters Union Local NO. 174 v. Trick & Murray, Inc.
  828 F.2d 1418· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-28 ·cited 6×
  The dissent argues that the rule announced in Great Western should not apply retroactively to this case because it was not clearly foreshadowed and retroactive application would be inequitable.
• G.P. Reed v. United Transp. Union
  828 F.2d 1066· 4th Cir.· 1987-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The six-month limitations period provided in Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act applies to claims brought under Title I of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
• Bacashihua v. United States Postal Serv.
  859 F.2d 402· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-07 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that even if the FAA did not apply, the claim was untimely under federal common law governing labor arbitrations, which borrows the FAA's three-month limitations period.
• Mspa Claims 1, LLC. v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co.
  43 F.4th 1259· 11th Cir.· 2022-08-10 ·cited 4×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) provides the applicable four-year statute of limitations for actions arising under Medicare Part C, and that the cause of action accrued in 2012, making the plaintiff's 2018 suit untimely.
• United Paperworkers Int'l Union & ITS Local 340 v. Specialty Paperboard, Inc.
  999 F.2d 51· 2d Cir.· 1993-07-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Vermont's six-year statute of limitations for civil actions, rather than the NLRA's six-month period, is the most appropriate statute of limitations for claims brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN).
• Amann v. Town OF Stow
  991 F.2d 929· 1st Cir.· 1993-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Massachusetts thirty-day limitations period for administrative appeals is the most analogous and appropriate statute of limitations for actions brought under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in Massachusetts.
• Diaz v. Shallbetter
  984 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amended version of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) should be applied retroactively to cases pending on appeal, as indicated by the Supreme Court's order.
• Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n v. Power City Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
  934 F.2d 557· 4th Cir.· 1991-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the three-month statute of limitations under the United States Arbitration Act is the appropriate limitations period for a motion to vacate a labor arbitration award when no controlling state law exists. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment en
• Johnson v. Graphic Commc'ns Int'l Union & Graphic Commc'ns Union Local 303
  930 F.2d 1178· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations under the NLRA applies to this suit, not the two-year Indiana statute of limitations for legal malpractice.
• Lavery v. Marsh
  918 F.2d 1022· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the thirty-day limitations period from Title VII applies to federal employee age discrimination claims under the ADEA, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to equitable tolling.
• McMAHAN v. Int'l Ass'n OF Bridge
  964 F.2d 1462· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that 29 U.S.C. § 504(d) creates an implied private right of action for union officials aggrieved by a union's failure to comply with the escrow requirement. However, only the entity directly responsible for salary payment is liable under the statute.
• Coyle v. Brotherhood of Railway
  838 F.2d 1404· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a claim under Section 2, Eleventh (a) of the Railway Labor Act for wrongful discharge due to union dues is governed by the six-month statute of limitations applicable to unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Ellenbogen v. Rider Maint. Corp.
  794 F.2d 768· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 2×
  A federal court need not borrow the six-month service requirement from § 10(b) of the NLRA for hybrid § 301/fair representation suits; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern service timelines.
• Int'l Union v. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc.
  100 F.3d 903· 11th Cir.· 1996-12-04 ·cited 1×
  The union sued to compel arbitration of grievances against Johnson Controls under a collective bargaining agreement covering security guards at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, a federal enclave. The district court applied a six-month federal statute of limitations borrowed from
• Zipperer v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty.
  891 F. Supp. 583· M.D. Fla.· 1995-06-27
  The court held that actions for attorneys' fees under the IDEA are subject to a 30-day statute of limitations, analogous to appeals from administrative hearings.
• Holmes v. Donovan
  984 F.2d 732· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-25
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Act's six-month statute of limitations does not apply to claims under the Labor-Management Relations Act § 302, and that claims under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act § 101(a)(5) are governed by Tennessee's one-yea