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

• Eichman v. Fotomat Corp.
  871 F.2d 784· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that prior judgments barred claims under res judicata and that the statute of limitations barred other claims, affirming the district court's summary judgment.
• Cmty. Elec. Serv. OF LOS Angeles, Inc. v. Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-06 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court should affirm the denial of sanctions because the motion was not timely filed, despite the majority's interpretation of precedent.
• Castro v. Albert J. Davis, M.D.
  527 So. 2d 250· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-06-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal of a prior lawsuit allows a plaintiff to refile a medical malpractice claim, even if the notice of intent to litigate was served during the pendency of the dismissed action, as long as the refiled action is within the statutory framework.
• Armbrister v. Roland Int'l Corp.
  667 F. Supp. 802· M.D. Fla.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  Summary judgment is granted for the defendants on Counts I, II, and III because the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
• Nagle v. LEE
  807 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-08 ·cited 20×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that the dismissal of the first suit for failure to prosecute was an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(b), barring the second suit against Sheriff Lee, but not against officers Laura and Montecino who were not parties to the first suit.
• Henderson v. United States Veterans Admin.
  790 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-28 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the Veterans Administration waived the timeliness defense by making a specific finding that the plaintiff's complaint was timely after it was remanded for that determination.
• Nikolas Zografov, M.D. v. V.A. Med. Ctr.
  779 F.2d 967· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that while the 30-day time limit for filing an EEO complaint is not a jurisdictional bar, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to equitable relief from this deadline due to a lack of affirmative misconduct by the government.
• Dubin v. DOW Corning Corp.
  478 So. 2d 71· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-10-02 ·cited 20×
  The four-year statute of limitations for actions arising from design, planning, or construction of real property improvements applies to breach of warranty claims, not the five-year contract limitations period. The statute began to run when the roof defect was discovered, and a c
• Burns v. United States
  764 F.2d 722· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's letter to a Senator did not constitute a sufficient administrative claim under the FTCA because it lacked a sum certain for damages, and thus the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co.
  762 F.2d 381· 4th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in DelCostello v. Teamsters, which established a six-month statute of limitations for hybrid § 301/DFR claims, should not be applied retroactively to this case due to inequitable circumstances and reliance on prior precedent.
• Stanford Monroe Welcker v. The United States
  752 F.2d 1577· Fed. Cir.· 1985-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant's claim under the Tucker Act was barred by the six-year statute of limitations because he was aware of the facts giving rise to his claim in 1949-1950, even if he later discovered additional evidence.
• ST. Louis v. Alverno Coll.
  744 F.2d 1314· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-02 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The ninety-day period to file a Title VII action begins to run from the date the right-to-sue notice is delivered to the claimant's last known address, not from the date of actual receipt if the delay is due to the claimant's own negligence in failing to update their address with
• Byrnes v. DeBOLT Transfer, Inc.
  741 F.2d 620· 3d Cir.· 1984-08-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's contractual obligations to contribute to pension funds applied to all drivers, union and non-union, and that the 1000-hour rule did not excuse contributions. The court remanded for further factual findings on the Neville Island operation and th
• Cobb v. Carlos Maldonado, M.D.
  451 So. 2d 482· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-01-25 ·cited 20×
  A plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must establish that fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery of the injury within the four-year statute of limitations period to extend the limitations period; mere discovery within four years does not to
• Snyder v. United States
  717 F.2d 1193· 8th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a claim for permanent pain resulting from negligent performance of a cordotomy is a question of fact not resolvable by summary judgment, while claims related to the necessity of the cordotomy due to misdiagnosis are time-barred.
• Nelson v. United States Steel Corp.
  709 F.2d 675· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The trial court properly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction after the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
• 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.
• Rosa v. Cantrell
  705 F.2d 1208· 10th Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that service of process on the defendant's wife at his usual place of abode was valid, and the statute of limitations was tolled due to his absence and concealment, thus the wrongful death claim was timely commenced.
• Ringrose v. Engelberg Huller Co., Inc.
  692 F.2d 403· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the case must be remanded to determine if the amended complaint naming successor corporations relates back to the original filing date under Rule 15(c).
• Walck v. Am. Stock Exch., Inc.
  687 F.2d 778· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that federal securities laws do not create an implied private right of action for damages against stock exchanges for failure to enforce their own rules or federal margin requirements.
• Partlow v. Jewish Orphans' Home OF S. Cal., Inc.
  645 F.2d 757· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that due process requires the district court to notify potential plaintiffs who filed ineffective consents and to toll the statute of limitations to allow them to refile.
• Orahood v. The Bd. OF Trs. OF the Univ. OF Ark. & Robert Ross
  645 F.2d 651· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-10 ·cited 20×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish substantially equal work for her Equal Pay Act claim and that her Title VII claims were either rebutted by the employer or barred by the statute of limitations for filing with the EEO
• Austin v. Brammer
  555 F.2d 142· 6th Cir.· 1977-05-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that dismissal of the civil rights complaint was inappropriate without an evidentiary hearing on the applicability of the tolling statute for imprisonment.
• Green v. Caspar Weinberger
  500 F.2d 203· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the claimant's failure to seek timely review of a prior administrative decision, and his subsequent untimely request to reopen that decision, were not excused by his alleged limited intellectual faculties or lack of counsel.
• Richard v. McDONNELL Douglas Corp.
  469 F.2d 1249· 8th Cir.· 1972-12-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the statute of limitations, as the filing with the EEOC tolled the limitations period.
• Babaui Malone v. N. Am. Rockwell Corp.
  457 F.2d 779· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for filing an EEOC charge is tolled while an employee in good faith pursues contractual grievance remedies.
• Bergschneider v. Denver
  446 F.2d 569· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts to toll the statute of limitations, and thus the dismissal was improper.
• Joffre E. Turner v. Keller Kitchen Cabinets
  247 So. 2d 35· Fla.· 1971-04-14 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a letter written by a claimant's wife to the State Treasurer, containing facts suggesting a workers' compensation claim despite asking for advice, constitutes a valid claim sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. The decision reversed th
• Ortiz v. LaVALLEE
  442 F.2d 912· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-25 ·cited 20×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that New York's tolling statute for imprisoned persons applies even if they have legal capacity to sue, thus the inmate's civil rights claim was not time-barred.
• Angus McDONALD v. United States
  315 F.2d 796· 6th Cir.· 1963-04-06 ·cited 20×
  The court holds that a composite excise tax return, even if erroneously omitting taxable items, does not start the running of the statute of limitations unless all potentially taxable items are reported.
• Baldwin v. Loew's Inc.
  312 F.2d 387· 7th Cir.· 1963-01-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs' antitrust claims because the relevant period for determining the statute's commencement was the date of the initial injury (lease execution), not subsequent lease renewals or the final disposition of a related
• Hattaway v. United States
  304 F.2d 5· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the term 'indictment' in 18 U.S.C. § 3288 refers specifically to a charge returned by a Grand Jury, not a general formal accusation like an information.
• United States v. Glenn
  231 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-20 ·cited 20×
  The disability provision in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(a) does not qualify the limitations period for tort claims under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(b).
• ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Centimark Corp.
  967 So. 2d 1053· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-11-02 ·cited 19×
  ABC Liquors appeals a summary judgment dismissing its breach of contract action against Centimark Corporation over a settlement agreement governing roof repairs on ABC liquor stores. The trial court found the settlement agreement unenforceable as an illusory "agreement to agree,"
• Eric Michael Patz, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health
  864 So. 2d 79· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-12-24 ·cited 19×·via Equitable Tolling
  Dr. Eric Patz appeals a default judgment entered by the Florida Board of Medicine after he failed to timely file an Election of Rights form requesting a formal hearing within the required 21-day period. The court affirms, holding that administrative procedure rules requiring time
• Woodall v. Travelers Indem. Co.
  699 So. 2d 1361· Fla.· 1997-10-02 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an underinsured motorist claim accrues on the date of the accident under State Farm v. Kilbreath, and that an insurance policy's no-action and exhaustion clauses requiring settlement with the tortfeasor's liability carrier before claiming under
• State v. Burt Picklesimer
  606 So. 2d 473· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-10-16 ·cited 19×
  Florida appealed the dismissal of criminal charges against Picklesimer for failure to serve an arrest warrant within the statute of limitations. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statute of limitations for execution of process under Florida Statutes §
• Knight v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.
  750 F. Supp. 1109· M.D. Fla.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 19×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that claims based on exchange rules are dismissed, but other claims, including securities fraud, common law fraud, and RICO, survive the motion to dismiss.
• LaDUKE v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  879 F.2d 1556· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-20 ·cited 19×
  A district court's decision to defer to a parallel state court action under the Colorado River doctrine is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and while dismissal may be permissible in some circumstances, a stay is generally the proper procedural mechanism to retain jurisdiction.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. O'Grady
  857 F.2d 383· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-12 ·cited 19×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the Sheriff's violations of the ADEA were willful, reversing the award of liquidated damages and remanding for reconsideration. The court affirmed the district court's decisions regarding the non-offset of pension benefits a
• Giles v. Garwood
  853 F.2d 876· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-30 ·cited 19×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that the appellant's § 1983 action was barred by the statute of limitations and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to disqualify the judge.
• McCUNE v. The City OF Grand Rapids
  842 F.2d 903· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a section 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury, and that continuing incarceration is an effect, not a continuing tort.
• C.M. English v. Pabst Brewing Co.
  828 F.2d 1047· 4th Cir.· 1987-09-15 ·cited 19×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's age discrimination claim was time-barred due to failure to file within the statutory period and that he failed to establish that his termination was based on age.
• United States v. Gengo
  808 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1986-12-22 ·cited 19×
  A superseding indictment does not violate the statute of limitations if it does not broaden or substantially amend the original charges, and a jury instruction omission is not reversible error if not prejudicial in the context of the entire charge.
• The United States v. Cook
  795 F.2d 987· Fed. Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court had the power to order the disclosure of names and addresses of potential FLSA plaintiffs and that doing so was not an abuse of discretion, but the order tolling the statute of limitations was premature.
• Taylor v. Nelson
  788 F.2d 220· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-11 ·cited 19×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear appeals from both the order denying a stay pending arbitration and the order vacating the arbitration award, and that the motion to vacate was untimely filed.
• W. Mountain OIL, Inc. v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  726 F.2d 765· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1983-12-22 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a federal statute of limitations for overcharges is governed by federal law regarding accrual and tolling, not state commencement statutes, and that fraudulent misrepresentations about pricing approval did not toll the limitations period.
• Nelson v. Int'l Paint Co.
  716 F.2d 640· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-20 ·cited 19×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court correctly applied California's statute of limitations, barring the claim, and that equitable exceptions did not apply.
• Donovan v. Crisostomo
  689 F.2d 869· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 19×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the statute of limitations for FLSA claims commenced when individual employees were named as claimants in the pre-trial order, not when the complaint was filed. It also held that the Secretary of Labor has authority to seek restitution for wage kickbacks that
• Gabriel A. Sanchez, M.D. v. Wimpey
  409 So. 2d 20· Fla.· 1982-01-14 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed a district court decision that held a medical mediation panel's jurisdiction extended ten months from filing date regardless of when hearings commenced. The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction terminates six months after filing if no hearing is be