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

• Rice v. NEW England Coll.
  676 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 22×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the 90-day filing period for a Title VII action is a non-jurisdictional statute of limitations subject to equitable considerations, but affirmed dismissal because the plaintiff failed to establish such grounds.
• Jennings v. Am. Postal Workers Union
  672 F.2d 712· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 22×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the Title VII claim due to a potentially tollable untimely EEOC filing and in dismissing the § 1981 and § 185 claims, which stated valid causes of action against the union.
• Parcinski v. The Outlet Co.
  673 F.2d 34· 2d Cir.· 1982-02-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove age was a determinative factor in his discharge, despite the mass firings that occurred during a corporate reorganization.
• Parkhurst v. State OF Wyo.
  641 F.2d 775· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that claims for release or injunctive relief are cognizable only in habeas corpus and require exhaustion of state remedies, but a claim for money damages under § 1983 may proceed if it does not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings.
• Watkins v. Nw. Ohio Tractor Pullers Ass'n, Inc.
  630 F.2d 1155· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because material issues of fact remained regarding laches and estoppel, particularly concerning the similarity of the infringing sleds and the defendant's ascertainability. The court also held that claims for future infr
• Geromette v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  609 F.2d 1200· 6th Cir.· 1979-12-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII claim was time-barred because neither the Michigan Civil Rights Commission nor the EEOC received a charge within the applicable statutory periods.
• Hedrick Smith and Ann B. Smith v. Nixon
  606 F.2d 1183· D.C. Cir.· 1979-07-12 ·cited 22×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the statutory and constitutional claims, and that the statute of limitations was tolled due to government secrecy, reversing the grant of summary judgment.
• Oppenheim v. Campbell
  571 F.2d 660· D.C. Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 22×
• Williams v. Phil Rich FAN Mfg. Co., Inc.
  552 F.2d 596· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-18 ·cited 22×
  The no-tolling rule established in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., which holds that the statute of limitations for a § 1981 claim is not tolled by filing a complaint with the EEOC, applies retroactively to cases pending at the time of the Johnson decision.
• SUN Shipbuilding & DRY Dock Co. v. Bowman
  507 F.2d 146· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-02 ·cited 22×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that the employer lacked knowledge of the employee's work-related hearing loss, barring compensation claims due to untimely filing and notice.
• Gen. Elec. Co. v. The City OF SAN Antonio
  334 F.2d 480· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a guilty plea in a criminal case should not be given special statutory effect in a civil proceeding, distinguishing it from a nolo contendere plea.
• Nolan v. Transocean AIR Lines
  290 F.2d 904· 2d Cir.· 1961-05-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that it could not definitively determine California law regarding the tolling of the statute of limitations in a wrongful death action when one potential claimant is a minor, due to conflicting California authorities.
• Warner v. First Nat'l Bank OF Minneapolis
  236 F.2d 853· 8th Cir.· 1956-09-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred claims based on transactions occurring before March 19, 1947, but claims 6 and 18, and any claims based on transactions after March 19, 1947, not discovered until after February 15, 1948, were not barred.
• Scarborough v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co.
  190 F.2d 935· 4th Cir.· 1951-08-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the submission of complex, multi-part special issues to the jury was erroneous, requiring a new trial.
• De Luca v. Atl. Ref. Co.
  176 F.2d 421· 2d Cir.· 1949-07-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the dismissal of the complaint and the denial of leave to amend were proper because the claims were barred by the statute of limitations or were insufficient in substance.
• Zuckerman v. McCULLEY
  170 F.2d 1015· 8th Cir.· 1948-12-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the estate was barred by Missouri's one-year statute of limitations for exhibiting demands, as the filing of the complaint did not constitute a legally exhibited claim under state law. The appeal from the order quashing service wa
• United States v. Ettelson
  159 F.2d 193· 7th Cir.· 1947-01-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Government's lien was valid because the filing of a claim in Probate Court constituted a proceeding in court that stopped the statute of limitations, and the Collector's execution of the claim created a presumption of possession of the assessment lists.
• State v. Rosenthal
  109 Fla. 363· Fla.· 1933-04-08 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court invalidated a toll bridge franchise granted to George J. Rosenthal by Monroe County Commissioners, holding that the county lacked proper authority to grant exclusive franchises and failed to meet statutory prerequisites.
• Karantsalis v. City of Miami Springs
  17 F.4th 1316· 11th Cir.· 2021-11-12 ·cited 21×·via Equitable Tolling
  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
• Fedance v. Clifford "T.I." Joseph Harris, Jr.
  1 F.4th 1278· 11th Cir.· 2021-06-21 ·cited 21×·via Equitable Tolling
  The Eleventh Circuit held that while the statute of limitations for Section 12(a)(1) claims does not textually foreclose equitable tolling, the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll the limitations period.
• Barash v. Kates
  585 F. Supp. 2d 1347· S.D. Fla.· 2006-10-12 ·cited 21×·via Equitable Tolling
  Philip Barash is sanctioned pursuant to the Court's inherent authority for perpetrating a fraud on the court through false statements during trial, while counsel James M. McCann is not sanctioned.
• Houck Corp. v. NEW River, Ltd.
  900 So. 2d 601· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-02-09 ·cited 21×
  Houck Corporation sought to foreclose a mortgage assigned to it in 2003, but the trial court granted summary judgment for New River based on a five-year statute of limitations. The court held that Florida's five-year statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosure actions under s
• Welch v. Cadre Cap.
  923 F.2d 989· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 21×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the new federal limitations period for securities fraud claims adopted in Ceres should not be applied retroactively to bar the plaintiffs' claims.
• Diamond R. Fertilizer & Seibels Bruce Grp. v. Davis
  567 So. 2d 451· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-08-30 ·cited 21×
  Diamond R. Fertilizer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed a permanent total disability award to Jimmy Davis, a former employee who developed a neurological condition allegedly from workplace exposure to toxic chemicals. The appellate court reversed and remanded, findin
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Galloway
  856 F.2d 112· 10th Cir.· 1988-09-07 ·cited 21×
  The court held that 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) bars guarantors from asserting fraud in the inducement based on unwritten misrepresentations against the FDIC, and that a continuing guaranty accrues a new cause of action as each underlying debt matures.
• Price v. Digit. Equip. Corp.
  846 F.2d 1026· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-15 ·cited 21×
  The court held that while the Title VII claim was time-barred, the § 1981 claim for discriminatory discharge was timely filed, and the district court erred in dismissing it on limitations grounds.
• Ermel I. Coon v. Ga. Pac. Corp.
  829 F.2d 1563· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot litigate claims not pleaded in the complaint, even if mentioned in a pretrial stipulation or related to an EEOC charge, and that class certification requires meeting specific Rule 23(a) criteria.
• Pace Indus., Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co.
  813 F.2d 234· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-24 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the initiation of a state court lawsuit to enforce a contract constitutes the last overt act for the purpose of the statute of limitations in an antitrust action, and subsequent appeals do not restart the limitations period.
• R.F. Vernon v. Heckler
  811 F.2d 1274· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-03 ·cited 21×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the 60-day time limit for filing a Social Security Act review action is a statute of limitations, not a jurisdictional bar, and that the notice of appeal was timely because the district court's judgment was not entered on a separate document.
• Tex T. Ferguson v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & CNA Ins. Cos.
  495 So. 2d 806· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-09-24 ·cited 21×
  A valid claim of fraud can toll the statute of limitations for workers' compensation benefits.
• Grier v. Secretary OF the Army
  799 F.2d 721· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 21×·via Equitable Tolling
  A federal employee must exhaust administrative remedies by filing a discrimination charge with the agency before suing under Title VII, and agency hiring decisions are reviewed under the APA for arbitrary or capricious action, not de novo.
• Herman v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  744 F.2d 604· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 21×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the nonwillful age discrimination claims were barred by the statute of limitations, but the willful claims could proceed to trial due to disputed issues of material fact regarding discriminatory intent.
• United States v. Gonsalves
  675 F.2d 1050· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that fleeing from justice in one federal jurisdiction tolls the statute of limitations for unrelated charges in another federal jurisdiction, and a good faith effort to surrender does not toll the statute.
• Pravin B. Shah v. Halliburton Co.
  627 F.2d 1055· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 21×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that a Title VII claim is time-barred if not filed within 180 days of the last unlawful employment practice, regardless of when pay ceases. It also held that a Section 1981 claim should be governed by the longer of two potentially applicable state statutes of limit
• Platoro Ltd., Inc. v. The Unidentified Remains OF A Vessel
  614 F.2d 1051· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-04 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for salvage claims should be tolled under the circumstances, and that the complaint stated a valid salvage claim within admiralty jurisdiction.
• Bush v. State Indus., Inc.
  599 F.2d 780· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-15 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that a subsequent amendment to the FLSA, providing an express private right of action for retaliatory discharge, applied to the pending case, mooting the issue of an implied right of action.
• George P. Quina (Anne R. Quina v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
  575 F.2d 1115· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 21×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the 180-day notice provision of the ADEA is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling based on mere ignorance of one's rights.
• Archibald Kreiger and Claire R. Kreiger v. United States
  539 F.2d 317· 3d Cir.· 1976-08-02 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for filing a tax refund claim is jurisdictional and cannot be tolled due to fraudulent concealment by a third party, even if the concealment prevented the taxpayer from discovering the issue earlier.
• Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst
  503 F.2d 1100· 7th Cir.· 1974-08-30 ·cited 21×·via Equitable Tolling
  Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the adequacy of the accountants' audits and their compliance with professional standards, precluding summary judgment.
• Meyer Braun v. Berenson
  432 F.2d 538· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that separate causes of action accrued when the plaintiff was refused additional space in 1961 and 1964, and these actions were not barred by the statute of limitations. The court also held that venue was improper for individual defendant Marks.
• Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Co.
  216 So. 2d 59· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-11-26 ·cited 21×
  Plaintiff Frank Barrentine appealed the dismissal of his negligence suit against Vulcan Materials Company and John McNeil on statute of limitations grounds. The Florida appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the statute of limitations was not tolled during pendency
• Bank of Wildwood v. Kerl
  138 Fla. 527· Fla.· 1939-06-09 ·cited 21×
  Bank of Wildwood sought to foreclose a mortgage and obtain a deficiency judgment against the defendants, but the trial court ruled that a deficiency decree could not be entered because the underlying debt, evidenced by an unsealed promissory note, had become barred by the five-ye
• In re Jackson
  826 F.3d 1343· 11th Cir.· 2016-06-24 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The Eleventh Circuit granted Steven Jackson's application for permission to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court found that Jackson made a prima facie showing that his motion contains a claim based on Johnson v. United States, which declared the ACCA's r
• Aleong v. State
  963 So. 2d 799· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-07-25 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that an attorney's mistake in calendaring does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance for equitable tolling, and excusable neglect is unavailable in Chapter 120 proceedings. However, the Board erred by imposing a sanction greater than the guidelines without w
• Modellista de Europa (Corp.) v. Redpath Inv. Corp.
  714 So. 2d 1098· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-07-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper, even if the delay was caused by counsel, and that the appellant suffered no prejudice from inadequate notice of the dismissal hearing.
• Aungst v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  937 F.2d 1216· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-22 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court should have let the jury verdict stand, as the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party could support their conclusion.
• Vintilla v. United States
  931 F.2d 1444· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-22 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that equitable tolling cannot override statutory requirements for filing tax refund claims, and a prior denial of a motion to dismiss does not preclude reconsideration of jurisdiction at the summary judgment stage.
• Beshears v. Asbill
  930 F.2d 1348· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-19 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that while a jury instruction misallocated the burden of proof regarding equitable tolling, the error was harmless, and affirmed the dismissal of claims for Beshears and Johnson and the jury verdict for Asbill.
• Alpha Sheffield and Wesley Sheffield v. Albert J. Davis, M.D. & Albert J. Davis, M.D. & Assocs., P.A.
  562 So. 2d 384· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-05-25 ·cited 20×
  Alpha and Wesley Sheffield appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice claim as time-barred. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations for medical malpractice is tolled (suspended) during the mandatory 90-day pre-suit notic
• Trustees of the Chicago Truck Drivers v. Cent. Transp., Inc.
  888 F.2d 1161· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-31 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  Notice of withdrawal liability to one member of a controlled group is sufficient notice to all members, but the Fund's filing of a claim in bankruptcy court equitably tolled the time for defendants to initiate arbitration.