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

• Cullen v. Margiotta
  811 F.2d 698· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the tolling principle in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah should not apply to toll the statute of limitations on plaintiffs' section 1983 and RICO claims because the state court action did not provide sufficient notice of the federal claims.
• Davis & COX v. Summa Corp.
  751 F.2d 1507· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-18 ·cited 99×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding evidence challenging the accuracy of billing statements, denying a jury trial, and applying res judicata and collateral estoppel to bar counterclaims. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Paul Jordan litigation
• Butler v. Local Union 823
  514 F.2d 442· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-18 ·cited 99×
  The court held that neither the employer nor the union claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the jury instructions regarding contract interpretation and fair representation were proper, but the award of punitive damages was erroneous.
• Patry v. William L. Capps, M.D.
  633 So. 2d 9· Fla.· 1994-03-10 ·cited 97×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that strict compliance with the certified mail requirement for medical malpractice presuit notice is not mandated when the defendant receives actual timely written notice that results in no prejudice. The court reversed the dismissal of the Patrys'
• Dusek v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co.
  832 F.3d 1243· 11th Cir.· 2016-08-10 ·cited 95×·via Equitable Tolling
  Madoff victims who invested through JPMorgan Chase accounts filed a class action against JPMorgan alleging control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and federal RICO claims. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that the Section 20(a)
• Olson v. Rembrandt Printing Co.
  511 F.2d 1228· 8th Cir.· 1975-02-12 ·cited 95×
  The court held that a timely filing with a state or local agency is required to benefit from the extended 300-day filing period with the EEOC under Title VII.
• Brown v. Giffen Indus., Inc.
  281 So. 2d 897· Fla.· 1973-03-07 ·cited 95×
  A reissued replacement check for lost or misplaced compensation checks does not toll or restart the statute of limitations for modification of workers' compensation orders under Fla. Stat. § 440.28. The limitations period runs from the date the original payment was made or should
• Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
  741 F.2d 1332· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-18 ·cited 94×
  The court held that disclaimers in a cruise contract did not shield the cruise line from liability for failure of the sanitary system, and that the denial of class certification was based on insufficient reasoning.
• Smith v. Am. President Lines, Ltd.
  571 F.2d 102· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-26 ·cited 94×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII claims against both APL and MEBA were time-barred due to untimely filing of charges with the EEOC, and equitable tolling was not warranted.
• Santiago v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  526 F.2d 488· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-31 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the government is not estopped from deporting aliens admitted based on preference visas when the basis for the preference later fails, absent affirmative misconduct by the government.
• Elliott v. Grp. Med. & Surgical Serv.
  714 F.2d 556· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 93×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination, reversing the district court's judgment.
• Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. & Vanadium Corp. of Am. v. Nisley
  300 F.2d 561· 10th Cir.· 1961-12-27 ·cited 92×
  The court held that Rule 23(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governing 'spurious' class actions, does not authorize a judgment to finally determine the rights of non-appearing class members.
• Baker v. F & F Inv.
  420 F.2d 1191· 7th Cir.· 1970-01-06 ·cited 91×
  State statutes of limitations apply to federal civil rights actions and begin to run from the termination of installment contracts, not their execution.
• Weaver v. CASA Gallardo, Inc.
  922 F.2d 1515· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 90×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court should not determine that discriminatory discharges are not covered by 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as the Supreme Court's holding in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union did not address discriminatory discharges.
• Singleton v. City OF NEW York
  632 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1980-09-25 ·cited 90×
  A dismissal of criminal charges after an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal constitutes a favorable termination for purposes of a federal civil rights claim, and all claims arising from a single transaction should not be barred by state statutes of limitation.
• Foster v. City OF Detroit
  405 F.2d 138· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-11 ·cited 90×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was properly invoked and retained, and that the statute of limitations and class action rules were correctly applied.
• Cleda Jean Chappell v. Emco Mach. Works Co.
  601 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-06 ·cited 89×·via Equitable Tolling
• Jhirad v. Ferrandina
  536 F.2d 478· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-12 ·cited 89×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the magistrate's finding of 'constructive flight' was supported by evidence and within the scope of the remand, and that the standard of proof for tolling the statute of limitations in extradition proceedings is
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. DON Burgess Constr. Corp.
  596 F.2d 378· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-04 ·cited 88×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's findings that Don Burgess Construction Corporation (BC) and V & B Builders (VB) constituted a single employer, that their carpenters formed an appropriate bargaining unit, and that they committed unfair labor practices
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  463 F.2d 907· D.C. Cir.· 1972-06-08 ·cited 86×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by failing to bargain with the union over its decision to relocate its plant and the effects of that decision, but affirmed the Board's finding that the relocation was not discriminatorily motivated.
• Posey v. Skyline Corp.
  702 F.2d 102· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 85×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's affidavit stating he never saw the ADEA notice was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the employer conspicuously posted the required notice, thus the 180-day filing period was not tolled.
• Truman Outland v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  284 F.2d 224· D.C. Cir.· 1960-10-27 ·cited 85×
  A petition for judicial review is timely if filed within sixty days after the denial of a timely petition for reconsideration, and the Civil Aeronautics Board did not abuse its discretion by deferring to negotiated seniority integration absent claims of bad faith.
• Briley v. State OF Cal.
  564 F.2d 849· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-19 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for the § 1983 claim was tolled until the plaintiff discovered the alleged fraud, and that prosecutorial immunity did not apply if the judge lacked statutory authority for the castration order. The § 1985(3) claim was properly dismis
• Weller v. Dickson
  314 F.2d 598· 9th Cir.· 1963-02-15 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the trial courts did not abuse their discretion in denying appellants' applications to proceed in forma pauperis, and that the allegations in Pope's complaint were insufficient to merit a hearing.
• Joannie Allen Dumas v. Town OF Mount Vernon
  612 F.2d 974· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-03 ·cited 83×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), and 1986 were time-barred, and the Town of Mount Vernon was not an 'employer' under Title VII. However, the Title VII claim against the Personnel Board was improperly dismissed.
• United States v. Grady
  544 F.2d 598· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-27 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the superseding indictment was not time-barred, the false entries statute was violated, Irish police records were admissible, subsequent similar acts testimony was properly admitted, and jury instructions on aiding and abetting unlawful export were adequate.
• Moore v. Sunbeam Corp. & Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers
  459 F.2d 811· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-10 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the 210-day limitations period for filing a charge with the EEOC is a maximum, not subject to further tolling for state agency consideration. The court also corrected a minor date calculation error in its prior opinion.
• Hutchings v. United States Indus., Inc.
  428 F.2d 303· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-19 ·cited 83×
  An employee's utilization of contractual grievance-arbitration procedures does not preclude them from pursuing a Title VII action in federal court, nor does it automatically toll the statute of limitations for filing EEOC charges.
• In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig. Adams Extract Co. v. Pleasure Hours, Inc.
  643 F.2d 195· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-03 ·cited 81×
  The court held that conflicts of interest did not invalidate the pre-January 5 settlements, but remanded the case for more detailed findings regarding the adequacy of the settlements and the distribution plan.
• Justice v. United States
  6 F.3d 1474· 11th Cir.· 1993-11-15 ·cited 80×·via Equitable Tolling
  Roger Justice brought a negligence action under the Public Vessels Act and Suits in Admiralty Act against the United States for injuries sustained aboard a government vessel. His original action, timely filed within the two-year statute of limitations, was dismissed without preju
• Swan v. Bd. OF Higher Educ. OF the City OF NEW York by Gustave G. Rosenberg
  319 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-04 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a nullity because it was filed after a judgment of dismissal had been entered, and the clerk's failure to formally enter the judgment did not alter this fact. The court also found that the plaintiff's claim was barred by t
• Leslie Pearlstein, M.D. v. Malunney
  500 So. 2d 585· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-12-10 ·cited 79×
  Defendants in a medical malpractice action sought certiorari to overturn a trial court order declaring Florida's prefiling notice requirement for medical malpractice claims unconstitutional. The appellate court held the statute constitutional and that the prefiling notice is a ma
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. The Seaboard Corp.
  677 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 79×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted on the § 10(b) claim due to a disputed issue of fact regarding the statute of limitations, but affirmed summary judgment on other claims based on the statute of limitations and the court's finding that the prospectus was
• Von D. Mizell v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist.
  427 F.2d 468· 5th Cir.· 1970-03-25 ·cited 79×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.
• David R. MAY Ad Litem of the Estate of Oscar T. Bradley v. Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co.
  771 So. 2d 1143· Fla.· 2000-11-16 ·cited 78×·via Equitable Tolling
  The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit regarding whether sections 733.702 and 733.710 of the Florida Probate Code operate as statutes of nonclaim or limitations. The Court held that section 733.702 is a statute of limitations that bars u
• Hosp. Corp. OF Am. v. Lindberg
  571 So. 2d 446· Fla.· 1990-12-06 ·cited 78×
  A premature filing of a medical malpractice complaint, filed simultaneously with the notice of intent to litigate, is subject to dismissal with leave to amend, rather than a fatal jurisdictional defect, provided the notice was served within the statutory limitations period.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. City OF Burlington
  351 F.2d 762· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-09 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in quashing the subpoena based on informer's privilege and oppressiveness, and that the matter should be remanded for further proceedings to seek accommodation.
• Klosenski v. Flaherty
  116 So. 2d 767· Fla.· 1959-12-02 ·cited 78×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a District Court of Appeal decision that quashed service of summons because the original summons was lost. The Court held that valid service of process vests jurisdiction over the defendant regardless of whether the officer's return is lost or d
• Selma Steiner v. 20TH Century-Fox Film Corp.
  232 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-15 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the appellant, as a landlord, is a proper party to bring an antitrust action alleging direct injury to her reversionary interest, and that the statute of limitations runs from the last overt act causing damage, with the closing of the theatre being the only po
• Phifer v. Abbott
  73 Fla. 402· Fla.· 1917-02-20 ·cited 76×
  This case involves the third appeal concerning a mortgage lien foreclosure. The court addressed whether the statute of limitations barred the foreclosure, considering payments made by a subsequent purchaser of the property. The court found that a payment made by the purchaser sus
• Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co. v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  802 F.2d 247· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 75×
  A suit to set aside a labor arbitrator's award is subject to a 90-day statute of limitations, and a party waives arbitrability arguments by submitting to arbitration without reservation. Frivolous challenges to arbitration awards warrant sanctions, including attorney's fees.
• William F. deHAAS v. Empire Petroleum Co.
  435 F.2d 1223· 10th Cir.· 1970-12-22 ·cited 75×
  Punitive damages are not recoverable in a private action under Rule 10b-5, and the statute of limitations was properly tolled until the plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the fraud.
• Liberles v. Cnty. OF Cook
  709 F.2d 1122· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 74×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the filing of an EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for suit under Title VII and that defendants waived objections by failing to raise them in the district court. The court affirmed summary judgment on the merits of the disparate impact claim but
• Hillard H. Aldrich and Amy Aldrich v. McCULLOCH Props., Inc.
  627 F.2d 1036· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-05 ·cited 74×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim regarding federal securities law violations, but affirmed the dismissal of claims under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA) due to its st
• Minda Satterwhite v. City OF Greenville
  578 F.2d 987· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 74×
  The en banc court reversed the panel decision on Rule 23 grounds, finding the case moot and not requiring automatic dismissal in all class action mootness cases.
• Woods v. Holy Cross Hosp.
  591 F.2d 1164· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-26 ·cited 73×
• Tomera v. Galt
  511 F.2d 504· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-05 ·cited 73×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim for securities fraud under Rule 10b-5 and that the claims were not time-barred due to fraudulent concealment tolling the statute of limitations.
• Seaver v. Stratton
  133 Fla. 183· Fla.· 1937-12-18 ·cited 72×
  In this 1937 Florida Supreme Court decision, the Seavers sold a yacht to Stratton in 1926, receiving a promissory note from third parties as part payment. The central issue was whether the note was accepted as absolute payment or as collateral security with Stratton's personal gu
• Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
  920 F.2d 446· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 71×·via Equitable Tolling
  The statute of limitations for an age discrimination claim begins to run when the employee is informed of the termination decision, not when the termination takes effect or when the employee fully realizes the discriminatory nature of the decision. Equitable tolling requires dili
• Rasimas v. Mich. Dep't OF Mental Health
  714 F.2d 614· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 71×·via Equitable Tolling
  The majority agreed that the judgment must be vacated and remanded due to a subsequent Supreme Court decision impacting the jurisdictional prerequisite for filing charges with the EEOC. However, the dissenting judge argued the majority improperly reversed the district court inste