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

• Donoghue v. The Cnty. OF Orange
  848 F.2d 926· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-29 ·cited 25×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the dismissal of federal and state claims based on statutes of limitation was improper without determining equitable tolling, and that the directed verdict on Title VII claims was inappropriate due to factual inferences and credibility issues for the jury.
• Friedlander v. Troutman
  788 F.2d 1500· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-09 ·cited 25×
  Federal law governs the characterization of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims for statute of limitations purposes, and a single, most appropriate state statute of limitations must be selected for all such claims within a state. The Georgia blue sky law is the most analogous statute,
• Celestine Ford v. Temple Hosp. & Nat'l Union of Hosp. & Health Care Emps.
  790 F.2d 342· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 25×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court erred in finding bad faith for the initiation of the lawsuit but did not err in finding bad faith for continuing the litigation after the summary judgment motions were filed. Attorneys' fees can be awarded for the latter conduct.
• Altair Corp. v. de Busquets
  769 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1985-08-07 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the prior suit seeking injunctive relief did not toll the statute of limitations for the current damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Jones v. Madison Serv. Corp. & Am. Transit Corp.
  744 F.2d 1309· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-02 ·cited 25×·via Equitable Tolling
  The 90-day period for filing a Title VII suit begins to run when the EEOC right-to-sue notice is actually received by the claimant or their attorney, provided certain conditions regarding representation are met.
• Drake v. Island Cmty. Church, Inc.
  462 So. 2d 1142· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-09-25 ·cited 25×
  Drake addresses when the statute of limitations begins to run for a minor child's tort and contract claims against a school for sexual abuse by a teacher. The court held that the limitations period does not commence until the parent/guardian is put on notice of the cause of actio
• Raisa R. Mayes v. Leipziger
  729 F.2d 605· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 25×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend, as the plaintiff had a right to amend her complaint as a matter of course or, alternatively, leave to amend should have been freely granted.
• Albert v. Kevex Corp.
  729 F.2d 757· Fed. Cir.· 1984-03-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 291 is established by a good faith, non-frivolous assertion of patent interference, not necessarily by the final determination of actual interference.
• Vance v. Whirlpool Corp.
  716 F.2d 1010· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-29 ·cited 25×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that if the district court lacked jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case, including equitable tolling.
• Kazanzas v. Walt Disney World Co.
  704 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 25×·via Equitable Tolling
  The statute of limitations for an ADEA claim runs from the date of the alleged unlawful practice, not from the filing of the administrative charge, and equitable tolling of the administrative filing period does not automatically toll the statute of limitations.
• Kocian v. Getty Ref. & Mktg. Co. Appeal of Charlotte Kocian
  707 F.2d 748· 3d Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 25×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal remedy under Title VII is time-barred because the EEOC failed to defer her charge to the state agency, and the state's shorter limitations period expired.
• Venegas v. Wagner
  704 F.2d 1144· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-28 ·cited 25×
  A civil rights claim alleging denial of a fair trial accrues upon the reversal of the wrongful conviction, not upon the last overt act of the conspiracy.
• Bennett v. City OF Slidell
  697 F.2d 657· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the city and city attorney could be held liable under § 1983 for unconstitutional application of zoning ordinances and deprivation of power, but the councilmen were not liable due to insufficient evidence.
• Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co.
  697 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in striking the plaintiff's motion to reconsider, but this error was harmless. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding the statute of limitations barred the claims.
• McCORMICK v. United States
  680 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-25 ·cited 25×
  The court should remand for further evidence and argument on whether the Suits in Admiralty Act's limitations period can be tolled, as the legislative intent is unclear.
• Summer v. Land & Leisure, Inc.
  664 F.2d 965· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the three-year limitations period for claims under Sections 11 and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 is an absolute bar, and that allegations of stock price decline and failure to hold meetings were insufficient to establish notice of fraud for Section 10(b)
• In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig. Adams Extract Co. v. The Chesapeake Corp. OF Va.
  659 F.2d 1322· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reapproving the settlements and the allocation formula, as its findings were sufficient and supported by the evidence.
• United States v. Watson
  599 F.2d 1149· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the government had a sufficient prosecutorial interest in delaying the unsealing of an indictment to avoid tipping off other defendants, and that the defendant did not suffer substantial actual prejudice from this delay.
• Robb v. Picarelli
  319 So. 2d 645· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-10-07 ·cited 25×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of a negligence action where the plaintiffs had shown due diligence in attempting to serve a defendant who was allegedly concealing his whereabouts. The court held that Florida's constructive service statutes
• Denis Henry v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
  508 F.2d 28· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-22 ·cited 25×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that New Jersey's choice of law principles mandate applying Quebec's statute of limitations, dismissing the suit as time-barred.
• Brafman v. United States
  384 F.2d 863· 5th Cir.· 1967-10-23 ·cited 25×·via Suspension Of Statute Of Limitations
  A tax assessment is invalid if the assessment certificate is not signed by an assessment officer as required by Treasury Regulations, and a suit for collection based on such an assessment is barred by the statute of limitations.
• Loux v. Rhay
  375 F.2d 55· 9th Cir.· 1967-03-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaint without issuing process, providing notice, or affording an opportunity to be heard, and that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend his complaint.
• Manning v. Serrano
  97 So. 2d 688· Fla.· 1957-10-09 ·cited 25×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a medical malpractice suit must be governed by the statute of limitations applicable to the form of action pleaded by the plaintiff—either tort (four years) or contract (three years)—rather than automatically applying a three-year limitations p
• Donnell v. United States
  229 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1956-01-27 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the defendant's intent in leaving and remaining outside the jurisdiction is a material question of fact for the jury to determine when considering whether the statute of limitations was tolled by fleeing from justice.
• J. M. Coe de bonis non of the Estate of W. E. Coe v. Finlayson
  41 Fla. 169· Fla.· 1899-01-01 ·cited 25×·via Suspension Of Statute Of Limitations
  A Florida Supreme Court decision holding that a seven-year adverse possession does not bar a foreclosure decree on mortgaged land, and that a foreclosure suit properly revived before the statute of limitations runs is not barred by the statute even if many years have passed since
• McBRIDE v. Pratt & Whitney & Ace USA
  909 So. 2d 386· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-08-04 ·cited 24×
  In a workers' compensation case, the court affirmed a denial of benefits on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the statute is not tolled during the period when an earlier-filed petition is pending and subsequently voluntarily dismissed. The court rejected the claimant's
• Ryan v. Leonor Lobo de Gonzalez and Jorge Gonzalez
  841 So. 2d 510· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-02-26 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  In this consolidated appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment dismissing claims by the heirs of Maria Luisa Lobo Ryan and the estate of Julio Lobo Olabarria on statute of limitations grounds, but reversed and remanded the denial of attorney's fees to
• Cann v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.
  813 So. 2d 237· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-04-05 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  Larry and Diana Cann appealed the Department of Children and Family Services' dismissal of their late administrative hearing request to contest denial of their medical foster home relicensure. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Florida law mandates dismissal of untime
• Rivera-Muriente v. Agosto-Alicea
  959 F.2d 349· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was time-barred because he knew or should have known of his termination more than one year before filing suit.
• Jerrald M. Johnson v. United States Postal Serv.
  861 F.2d 1475· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) does not allow relation back of an amended complaint to name a new party defendant if notice was not received within the statutory limitations period.
• Swartzman v. The Honorable Catherine M. Harlan
  535 So. 2d 605· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-11-16 ·cited 24×
  This case addresses whether a debtor's bankruptcy filing tolls the statute of limitations on creditors' claims under Florida law. The appellate court held that bankruptcy proceedings do not toll the statute of limitations, and therefore Scrub-A-Dub's action against the Swartzmans
• Overgard v. Cambridge Book Co.
  858 F.2d 371· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-23 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that while there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find age discrimination, the evidence did not support a finding that the violation was willful, thus reducing the damages award.
• Blumberg v. HCA Mgmt. Co., Inc.
  848 F.2d 642· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-05 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a factual basis for equitable tolling of the 180-day filing period for her age discrimination claim.
• Hattie Paulk v. Dep't OF the AIR Force
  830 F.2d 79· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that service on the United States Attorney within the limitations period, even if after filing an in forma pauperis petition, allows an amendment to name the correct federal defendant to relate back under Rule 15(c).
• Teamsters Local 282 Pension Tr. Fund v. Angelos
  815 F.2d 452· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because the federal securities claims were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and collateral estoppel prevented tolling the limitations period.
• Richards Enters., Inc. v. Swofford
  495 So. 2d 1210· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-10-02 ·cited 24×
  Richards Enterprises appealed the dismissal of its legal malpractice claim against attorney Swofford, arguing that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until after the appellate court affirmed the adverse foreclosure decision. The court held that the two-year statute o
• Silverberg v. Thomson McKINNON Sec., Inc.
  787 F.2d 1079· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Exchange Act and RICO claims were barred by the statute of limitations, applying Ohio's four-year limitations period for fraud as the most analogous state statute of limitations for both federal claims.
• Cerbone v. Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union
  768 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-17 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations did not establish facts sufficient to toll the statute of limitations under equitable tolling or equitable estoppel doctrines, as he was aware of his potential age discrimination claim and the employer's representations did not cons
• Shapiro v. Cook United, Inc.
  762 F.2d 49· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's cause of action accrued when the union failed to pursue arbitration within the collective bargaining agreement's time limit, and the statute of limitations was not tolled by fraudulent concealment.
• Smith v. Oral Roberts Evangelistic Ass'n, Inc.
  731 F.2d 684· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that Title VII does not require a plaintiff to file a charge with a state agency within state-imposed time limitations as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the extended federal filing period in deferral states.
• United States v. Assocs. Commercial Corp.
  721 F.2d 1094· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for collecting unpaid taxes from a lender under IRC § 3505(b) is suspended during the period the employer's assets are in court custody, and that failure to provide the lender with notice of assessment under IRC § 6303(a) bars the go
• Jordan v. United States
  694 F.2d 833· D.C. Cir.· 1982-11-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying relief under Rule 60(b) from the dismissal of the complaint due to a technical defect in service on the United States, where the failure was not attributable to the appellants and the government suffered no prejudice.
• Aurora Enters., Inc. v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  688 F.2d 689· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that plaintiffs have standing to sue for antitrust violations under the 'target area' test and that their attempted monopolization claim was properly stated. However, one plaintiff's tying claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
• Berlin L. Lawson v. Burlington Indus., Inc.
  683 F.2d 862· 4th Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to file his discrimination charge within the statutory time period and that no equitable justifications for tolling the period existed.
• MAY v. Enomoto
  633 F.2d 164· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 24×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled and that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, thus affirming the directed verdict.
• United States v. Muse
  633 F.2d 1041· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-22 ·cited 24×
  A defendant claiming prejudice from a sealed indictment must show prejudice occurring only during the period the indictment was sealed, not from the date of the offense.
• Miller v. Smith
  615 F.2d 1037· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that federal courts should honor state statutes of limitations, including their tolling provisions, unless they are inconsistent with federal law.
• Valentine R. Ciccone v. Textron, Inc.
  616 F.2d 1216· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that to qualify for the 300-day filing period under the ADEA in a deferral state, a plaintiff must file a charge with the state agency within 180 days of the alleged violation.
• Hanson v. Polk Cnty. Land, Inc.
  608 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-10 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that granting summary judgment based on an oral motion without the required ten-day notice under Rule 56(c) constitutes reversible error.
• Morris v. Stifel
  600 F.2d 139· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-07 ·cited 24×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the two-year statute of limitations under the Missouri blue sky statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 409.411(e), was the appropriate limitations period for federal securities claims, as it bore the closest resemblance in purpose and substance to Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-