Tolling Of Statute Of Limitations

2,208 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,245 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Murray Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc.
  667 F.2d 33· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 895×
  A prior suit dismissed for failure to prosecute does not toll the statute of limitations for federal claims. A federal court may retain jurisdiction over a pendent state claim even if it is barred by the state statute of limitations.
• Major League Baseball v. Morsani
  790 So. 2d 1071· Fla.· 2001-07-12 ·cited 410×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is not precluded by Florida's statute of limitations statute (§ 95.051) because equitable estoppel operates on the party rather than tolling the statute itself. The case arose from a dispute involving alleged
• Irving W. Landers et ux. v. Adelle L. Milton
  370 So. 2d 368· Fla.· 1979-04-19 ·cited 387×
  The court held that once a defendant moving for summary judgment demonstrates the statute of limitations has expired on the face of the pleadings, the plaintiff must provide competent evidence to show the statute was tolled.
• Rush Pettway v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co.
  494 F.2d 211· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-29 ·cited 319×
  The court affirmed the result regarding assigned errors, finding it consistent with precedent and Title VII's remedial aims.
• Copeland v. Marshall
  641 F.2d 880· D.C. Cir.· 1979-10-09 ·cited 276×
  The dissenting judges argue that the majority's market value approach to calculating attorney's fees in Title VII cases against the government is unworkable and leads to excessive awards. They propose a cost-plus reasonable profit model instead.
• Nardone v. Reynolds
  333 So. 2d 25· Fla.· 1976-05-19 ·cited 273×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed when the statute of limitations begins to run in medical malpractice cases involving an incompetent minor. The court held that the statute commences when the injury becomes apparent and known to the parents, even if the cause of the injury rema
• City OF Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.
  495 F.2d 448· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-13 ·cited 261×
  The court held that the $10 million settlement was fair and equitable, but the $1.5 million counsel fee award was excessive and required further hearing.
• Williams v. Keith Robinson Oken, M.D.
  62 So. 3d 1129· Fla.· 2011-05-05 ·cited 252×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the First District Court of Appeal exceeded its authority by granting a writ of certiorari to review the trial court's determination of whether a medical expert was qualified under statutory presuit requirements. The Court clarified that certio
• Hobson v. Wilson
  737 F.2d 1· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 237×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the District of Columbia and its employees can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and that certain claims against FBI defendants were barred by the statute of limitations, while others against MPD defendants and the District lacked sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Ga. Power Co.
  474 F.2d 906· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-14 ·cited 215×
  The court held that the Hite Study was an invalid method for validating Georgia Power's employment tests and that the high school diploma requirement was not a business necessity. The court also addressed limitations on back pay awards.
• Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  678 F.2d 992· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 206×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the preconditions to filing a Title VII action, such as filing an EEOC complaint and receiving a right-to-sue letter, are not jurisdictional prerequisites and can be subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.
• Sochor v. State
  619 So. 2d 285· Fla.· 1993-05-06 ·cited 195×
  Dennis Sochor appeals his convictions for kidnapping and first-degree murder, and his death sentence, following the disappearance and presumed death of an 18-year-old victim on New Year's Eve 1981. The Florida Supreme Court upholds all convictions and the death sentence, rejectin
• Mrs. Roger McMillan Reeb v. Econ. Opportunity Atlanta, Inc.
  516 F.2d 924· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 190×·via Equitable Tolling
  The ninety-day period for filing an EEOC charge under Title VII is not a strict jurisdictional prerequisite and can be subject to equitable tolling and estoppel when the facts supporting the claim were not reasonably discoverable within that period, especially if the employer eng
• Fullman v. Graddick
  739 F.2d 553· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 188×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's civil rights claims, finding that most allegations were either barred by immunity doctrines, failed to state a claim due to vagueness and conclusory nature, or were unsupported by specific facts.
• Johnson v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  491 F.2d 1364· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 188×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding that Goodyear's testing requirements did not have a discriminatory effect and in denying class-wide back pay. The court also extended the coverage of seniority relief.
• Adolph G. Hoffman v. Halden
  268 F.2d 280· 9th Cir.· 1959-05-28 ·cited 184×
  The court held that the second amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act, and that the district court had jurisdiction. The court also addressed the elements of conspiracy claims under various Civil Rights statutes and the role of overt ac
• Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co.
  495 F.2d 398· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-03 ·cited 169×
  The court held that the thirty-day limitations period for a Title VII action begins to run only upon the aggrieved party's actual receipt of the EEOC's suit letter, not upon its mailing or constructive receipt. The court also held that arbitration awards are not binding in Title
• Patterson v. The Am. Tobacco Co.
  535 F.2d 257· 4th Cir.· 1976-02-23 ·cited 164×
  The court held that the imposition of quotas for supervisory positions was error, and that a quota is not a defense to discrimination.
• Janigan v. Taylor
  344 F.2d 781· 1st Cir.· 1965-05-04 ·cited 163×
  The court held that federal law governs the accrual of a cause of action under the Securities Exchange Act, even when state law dictates the limitations period, and that a fraudulent seller must disgorge profits gained from the fraudulent sale.
• Tanner v. Ellie Hartog, M.D.
  618 So. 2d 177· Fla.· 1993-05-13 ·cited 161×
  The Florida Supreme Court clarified when the statute of limitations begins to run in medical malpractice cases involving stillbirth. The court held that mere knowledge of an adverse medical outcome does not trigger the statute unless the plaintiff also knows or should know that m
• State OF W. Va. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc.
  440 F.2d 1079· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-29 ·cited 155×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement, particularly regarding the use of the 'passing-on' doctrine for damage distribution and the maintenance of a class action for consumer claims.
• Carter v. Sparkman
  335 So. 2d 802· Fla.· 1976-05-05 ·cited 149×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1975, which requires plaintiffs to submit medical malpractice claims to a mandatory mediation panel before filing suit, while addressing equal protection concerns by construing the sta
• Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, Inc.
  368 So. 2d 1337· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-03-13 ·cited 147×
  Maria Salcedo appealed the dismissal of her negligence action against a medical clinic based on the statute of limitations. The court reversed, holding that the defendant clinic was estopped from asserting the limitations defense because it had successfully argued the plaintiff's
• Emra Joseph Bonham v. Dresser Indus., Inc.
  569 F.2d 187· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-27 ·cited 146×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the 180-day filing period under the ADEA is a statute of limitations subject to equitable tolling and estoppel, and that a state's shorter filing deadline does not bar a federal suit if filed within the federal period.
• Coke v. Gen. Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
  640 F.2d 584· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 141×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court holds that the 180-day filing requirement of the ADEA is subject to equitable tolling.
• Culpepper v. Reynolds Metals Co.
  421 F.2d 888· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-08 ·cited 136×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for filing a Title VII claim is tolled when an employee invokes contractual grievance remedies, and that preliminary injunctive relief is available to individual litigants under Title VII.
• Heiar v. Crawford Cnty.
  746 F.2d 1190· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 135×
  The dissenting judge believes the court should have applied the same standard of proof to state and local governments as is applied to the federal government under the ADEA.
• Martin v. Secretary Walter A. McNEIL
  633 F.3d 1257· 11th Cir.· 2011-02-23 ·cited 132×·via Equitable Tolling
  Pablo San Martin, a Florida death row inmate, appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). San Martin argued that a two-week delay in receiving actual notice of the Supreme Court's den
• Nilsen v. The City OF Moss Point
  701 F.2d 556· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 132×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the doctrine of res judicata should not bar a plaintiff's constitutional claim when the district court denied her motion to amend her original complaint to include that claim.
• Darrian Bryant v. Ford
  967 F.3d 1272· 11th Cir.· 2020-08-03 ·cited 126×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by sua sponte dismissing a habeas petition as untimely without providing proper safeguards or using the correct operative date for calculating the statute of limitations.
• Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp.
  838 F.2d 1445· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the Keogh doctrine, which bars antitrust damage claims based on ICC-approved rates, does not apply to plaintiffs who are competitors of the defendant railroads, not customers seeking an advantage over other customers. The court also addressed other issues cert
• Am. Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  710 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-04 ·cited 120×
  The court held that the FDIC, as receiver for PSSB, was entitled to the escrow fund because the purpose of the link financing agreement was frustrated by the bank's insolvency, and SFC's claims were not barred by procedural defenses.
• MacHules v. Dep't OF Admin.
  523 So. 2d 1132· Fla.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 117×·via Equitable Tolling
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to administrative appeals under Florida's career service rules, allowing an employee terminated for abandonment to file a late appeal to the Department of Administration when he was misled into pursuing
• Esplin v. Leland (Lee) Hirschi and Laverne Hirschi
  402 F.2d 94· 10th Cir.· 1968-09-30 ·cited 117×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the class action was improperly dismissed, that the Investment Company Act claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, and that damages should be calculated as of the date of fraud discovery.
• Hearndon v. Graham
  767 So. 2d 1179· Fla.· 2000-09-14 ·cited 114×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the delayed discovery doctrine applies to the accrual of causes of action based on childhood sexual abuse accompanied by traumatic amnesia, allowing plaintiffs to proceed despite the passage of time since the abuse occurred. The Court distingui
• Bomar v. Keyes
  162 F.2d 136· 2d Cir.· 1947-05-16 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the filing of a complaint tolls the statute of limitations under the Civil Rights Act, and that the defendant Keyes was not a privy to prior state judgments, thus allowing the case to proceed.
• Paez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  947 F.3d 649· 11th Cir.· 2020-01-07 ·cited 111×
  A district court may sua sponte dismiss a habeas petition as untimely based on judicially noticed state court docket entries, provided the petitioner receives fair notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• Univ. OF Miami v. Bogorff
  583 So. 2d 1000· Fla.· 1991-01-18 ·cited 110×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Bogorffs' medical malpractice and products liability claims against Dr. Koch, the University of Miami, and Lederle Laboratories were barred by the statute of repose because they filed their complaint more than four years after the incident
• Friedman v. The United States
  310 F.2d 381· Ct. Cl.· 1962-11-07 ·cited 110×
  The court held that judicial review of Correction Board determinations is limited to the computation of monetary amounts due, not the substantive correction of records.
• McCONNELL v. Critchlow
  661 F.2d 116· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 109×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court and that the statute of limitations had run on the civil rights claims, affirming all dismissals.
• Guerra v. Manchester Terminal Corp.
  498 F.2d 641· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-31 ·cited 109×
  The court held that discrimination based on alienage is not prohibited by Title VII, but 42 U.S.C. § 1981 applies to aliens and private discrimination, and that filing administrative charges tolls the statute of limitations for § 1981 claims.
• Clauson v. Smith
  823 F.2d 660· 1st Cir.· 1987-07-07 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish equitable estoppel to overcome the statute of limitations for his Jones Act claim, and that his unseaworthiness claim was not proven because the proximate cause of his injury was operational negligence, not a defect in the ves
• 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.
• Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  610 F.2d 241· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-21 ·cited 105×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the EEOC's reconsideration of a determination vacated the initial right-to-sue notice, allowing a second notice and tolling the ninety-day filing period. It also held that dismissal of the § 1981 claim for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion withou
• Bogard v. Cook
  586 F.2d 399· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-15 ·cited 105×
  The court held that prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity and can only be held liable for damages upon a showing of misconduct greater than ordinary negligence. The record supported the trial court's directed verdict for the top prison officials.
• Naton v. The Bank OF Cal.
  649 F.2d 691· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 103×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the alleged unlawful practice occurred on the date of unequivocal notice of termination and last day of work, not the later 'effective termination date'. It also held that the ADEA does not authorize damages for pain and suffering.
• Thomasina Mack v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  871 F.2d 179· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 102×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were untimely filed under Title VII because she failed to demonstrate a discriminatory act within the 240-day limitations period or sufficient grounds for equitable tolling.
• Anne M. Dartt v. Shell OIL Co.
  539 F.2d 1256· 10th Cir.· 1976-07-22 ·cited 102×·via Equitable Tolling
  The 180-day notice period under the ADEA is not strictly jurisdictional and may be subject to equitable tolling and estoppel.
• Parrent v. Midwest RUG Mills, Inc.
  455 F.2d 123· 7th Cir.· 1972-01-26 ·cited 102×
• Hipp v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  252 F.3d 1208· 11th Cir.· 2001-05-29 ·cited 100×·via Equitable Tolling
  In this Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's certification of an opt-in class but reversed on the temporal scope of the action and the sufficiency of evidence. The court held tha