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

• Larson v. Am. Wheel & Brake, Inc.
  610 F.2d 506· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-04 ·cited 14×·via Equitable Tolling
• Wyshak v. City Nat'l Bank
  607 F.2d 824· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was time-barred by the applicable state statute of limitations, and therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
• Schuler v. United States
  617 F.2d 605· D.C. Cir.· 1979-09-07 ·cited 14×
  The court should affirm the district court's judgment, as the plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and the Foreign Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction over the specific claims presented.
• Tetstone v. Adams
  373 So. 2d 362· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-06-13 ·cited 14×
  The Tetstones appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice action against Dr. Adams based on the two-year statute of limitations. The court reversed, holding that whether Mrs. Tetstone discovered or reasonably should have discovered her injury within the limit
• Keyse v. Cal. Tex. OIL Corp. & Am. Overseas Petroleum Ltd.
  590 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-21 ·cited 14×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII were time-barred due to failure to file timely administrative charges and lawsuits.
• Smith v. United States
  588 F.2d 1209· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claim under the Minnesota Civil Damage Act was a tort claim, and thus barred by the two-year statute of limitations for filing an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Liane Buix McDONALD v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  587 F.2d 357· 7th Cir.· 1978-11-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court improperly narrowed the class definition to only discharged stewardesses, and that the recovery period should be tolled from October 27, 1965, to November 7, 1968.
• Rudolph v. Wagner Elec. Corp.
  586 F.2d 90· 8th Cir.· 1978-11-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that pursuing a union grievance does not toll the time limit for filing a Title VII claim, and the discharge date is the relevant occurrence for the filing period.
• Emory Warner v. Perrino
  585 F.2d 171· 6th Cir.· 1978-10-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that filing a complaint with a state civil rights commission does not toll the statute of limitations for federal housing discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 or the Fair Housing Act.
• United States v. Gustav Wahl
  583 F.2d 285· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 14×
  Literal compliance with Rule 3, F.R.Civ.P., by filing a complaint is sufficient to interrupt the running of a federal statute of limitations, even if service of process is delayed.
• Neel v. Rehberg
  577 F.2d 262· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that claims arising from alleged mistreatment while incarcerated are not time-barred as continuing wrongs, but claims regarding refusal to arrest prior to incarceration are time-barred. The court also held that Georgia's tolling statute for prisoners does not apply
• Burke v. Jerry Miller, M.D.
  580 F.2d 108· 4th Cir.· 1978-07-06 ·cited 14×
  Witnesses in state judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 for testimony given in their official capacity.
• Jimenez v. Astol Calero Toledo
  576 F.2d 402· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that res judicata did not bar the suit because the prior state court decision was not on the merits, and the statute of limitations did not bar all claims, particularly those involving fraudulent concealment.
• McARTHUR v. S. Airways, Inc.
  556 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 14×
• Elfego R. Sanchez v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  499 F.2d 1107· 10th Cir.· 1974-06-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for an equal employment opportunity claim may be tolled during the pendency of a collective bargaining grievance procedure, and that the trial court must consider the applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
• Brennan v. Indep. Lift Truck Builders Union
  490 F.2d 213· 7th Cir.· 1974-01-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the union's refusal to cooperate tolled the statute of limitations and that the discharged employee was unlawfully denied the right to be a candidate for union office under a provision deemed an unreasonable qualification.
• The Binkley Co. v. Teledyne Mid-America Corp.
  460 F.2d 276· 8th Cir.· 1972-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the four-year statute of limitations for breach of warranty in a sales contract begins to run at the time of tender of delivery, not upon discovery of the breach or completion of installation, unless the warranty explicitly extends to future performance.
• Molybdenum Corp. OF Am. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n
  457 F.2d 935· 10th Cir.· 1972-03-29 ·cited 14×
  The 90-day statutory period for filing a complaint commenced anew from the last allegedly unlawful employment practice, not the first denial.
• United States v. Ward M. Wilsey
  458 F.2d 11· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-20 ·cited 14×
  The superseding indictments were timely because the statute of limitations was tolled by the initial indictment, and 18 U.S.C. § 3288 does not apply when the initial indictment is dismissed after trial commencement.
• Gasparro v. Horner
  245 So. 2d 901· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-01-08 ·cited 14×
• Anne K. Engle v. Deerborne Sch.
  226 So. 2d 681· Fla.· 1969-09-10 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an employer-carrier is estopped from invoking the Statute of Limitations defense in a workers' compensation claim when it acquiesced in and paid for medical treatment without objecting, thereby misleading the claimant into believing liability w
• United States v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co.
  359 F.2d 521· 6th Cir.· 1966-04-12 ·cited 14×
  An amendment adding a new party defendant does not relate back to the original filing date for purposes of the Miller Act's one-year statute of limitations.
• Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vernal A. Webb
  174 So. 2d 21· Fla.· 1965-04-14 ·cited 14×
  This workers' compensation case concerns which of two insurance carriers is liable for future medical benefits for an employee who sustained back injuries in 1956 and 1958 under the same employer. The Florida Supreme Court vacates the lower court's assignment of responsibility to
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Pac. GAS & Elec. Co.
  326 F.2d 575· 9th Cir.· 1964-01-06 ·cited 14×
  The fraudulent concealment of a cause of action tolls the four-year statute of limitations provided in the Clayton Act.
• United States v. Hyman Greenberg
  320 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1963-07-05 ·cited 14×
  A complaint filed with a Commissioner to toll the statute of limitations must establish probable cause, even when a summons is issued instead of an arrest warrant.
• Howanitz v. Biscayne Elec., Inc.
  139 So. 2d 678· Fla.· 1962-04-04 ·cited 14×
  An employee suffered a flash burn to his eyes during a welding accident in April 1958, then later developed a cataract and lost the use of his right eye. The Florida Supreme Court held that the employer's insurance carrier was estopped from invoking the statute of limitations whe
• Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. The United States
  297 F.2d 546· Ct. Cl.· 1962-01-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations because they were filed long after the six-year period had expired from the accrual of the cause of action.
• Dibble v. Sid W. Jensen and Ruth Mark Jensen Cresse
  129 So. 2d 162· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-04-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to file the complaint within the statute of limitations period bars the action, even though the defendant was absent from the state.
• Searl v. Earll
  221 F.2d 24· D.C. Cir.· 1954-11-24 ·cited 14×
  An agent who conceals his dual agency and adverse interests commits fraud, tolling the statute of limitations for the principal's claims, and is personally liable for unlawful interest and secret profits.
• Calvin v. Calvin
  214 F.2d 226· D.C. Cir.· 1954-04-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that claims previously litigated in a prior suit are barred by res judicata, but claims for expenses and services not raised in the prior suit may proceed, subject to statute of limitations defenses.
• McCLELLAN v. Montana-Dakota Utils. Co.
  204 F.2d 166· 8th Cir.· 1953-05-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations, affirming the lower court's summary judgment.
• Riley v. Union Pac. R. Co.
  182 F.2d 765· 10th Cir.· 1950-06-14 ·cited 14×
  The Wyoming statute allowing a new action within one year of a failed prior action does not apply to actions commenced in another state.
• Salvoni v. Pilson
  181 F.2d 615· D.C. Cir.· 1950-03-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for reviving a judgment was suspended during the period of war between the United States and Italy, because the judgment creditor was in enemy territory and lacked practical access to the courts.
• United States ex rel. Rooney v. Ragen
  158 F.2d 346· 7th Cir.· 1946-11-20 ·cited 14×
  A federal court has jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus petition alleging a due process violation based on knowing use of perjured testimony, even if state remedies appear time-barred, provided the petitioner has exhausted available state remedies.
• Earvin Smith v. State
  211 So. 3d 176· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-12-21 ·cited 13×
  Earvin Smith appeals his convictions for armed sexual battery and armed burglary committed in 1990 but prosecuted in 2011 after a DNA match. The court affirmed the sexual battery conviction but reversed the burglary conviction as time-barred by the statute of limitations, and cer
• Lopez v. Alcala
  547 F. Supp. 2d 1255· M.D. Fla.· 2008-02-29 ·cited 13×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the children were wrongfully removed from Mexico under the Hague Convention and must be returned, as the exceptions to return were not met.
• Nicks v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l
  957 So. 2d 65· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-05-04 ·cited 13×·via Equitable Tolling
  Carl Thomas Nicks appeals the revocation of his contractor's license by the Construction Industry Licensing Board after the Board found he waived his right to dispute factual allegations in an administrative complaint by failing to timely return an election of rights form. The Fi
• State v. Perez
  952 So. 2d 611· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-03-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the information based on an incorrect version of the statute of limitations, as the defendant's absence from the state tolled the limitation period.
• Breffnay Cunnell v. State
  920 So. 2d 810· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-02-17 ·cited 13×
  Breffnay Cunnell sought a writ of prohibition to prevent prosecution on drug charges filed in 2001 but not served until 2005, arguing the State failed to comply with Florida's statutes of limitations. The appellate court granted the petition, holding that the State failed to exec
• Lett v. State
  837 So. 2d 614· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-02-21 ·cited 13×
  Petitioner Lett challenges Florida's attempt to prosecute him for sexual battery committed in 1980 after serving over 20 years in Maryland, arguing the statute of limitations has expired. The court grants a writ of prohibition, holding that Florida's 22-year delay in executing th
• Torrey v. Leesburg Reg'l Med. Ctr.
  769 So. 2d 1040· Fla.· 2000-10-26 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a complaint signed by an attorney not licensed to practice in Florida is a defective but amendable pleading, not a nullity, and that trial courts must allow litigants reasonable time to amend with authorized counsel without requiring a showing
• Vantage Healthcare Corp. v. Agency FOR Health Care Admin. & Manatee Springs Nursing Ctr., Inc.
  687 So. 2d 306· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-01-27 ·cited 13×·via Equitable Tolling
  The agency erred in departing from its own rule by accepting a late-filed letter of intent under the doctrine of equitable tolling.
• LEE v. City OF Jacksonville & CNA Ins. Co.
  616 So. 2d 37· Fla.· 1993-04-01 ·cited 13×
  The limitations period for workers' compensation claims is not tolled by a claimant's continued use of a dependency-inducing medical device furnished by the employer if the employer lacks actual knowledge of the continued use.
• Luna v. United States Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  948 F.2d 169· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-25 ·cited 13×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's application for attorney's fees under the EAJA was timely due to equitable tolling, despite being filed more than thirty days after the district court's remand order, which was deemed the final judgment.
• Loeber v. BAY Tankers, Inc.
  924 F.2d 1340· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 13×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the United States due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Admiralty Extension Act's jurisdictional prerequisite of filing a claim and waiting six months before filing suit. However, the court
• Davenport v. A.C. Davenport & SON Co.
  903 F.2d 1139· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff should have been given an opportunity to prove tolling of the statute of limitations, as dismissal at the pleading stage was premature.
• Smith v. Gen. Scanning, Inc.
  832 F.2d 96· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 13×·via Equitable Tolling
  Failure to commence proceedings under state law in a deferral state before filing an ADEA claim in federal court mandates dismissal, as this is a condition precedent to suit.
• Philip and Dorothy Korwek v. Hunt
  827 F.2d 874· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 13×
  The American Pipe tolling doctrine does not apply to permit a plaintiff to file a subsequent class action after a definitive determination that class certification is inappropriate.
• Standard Off. Bldg. Corp. & Santa Fe Land Improvement Co. v. United States
  819 F.2d 1371· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that neither the government's nor the taxpayer's extreme interpretation of 'service in connection with' rail transportation is tenable under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
• Robinson v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  777 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1985-11-18 ·cited 13×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the six-month limitations period of section 10(b) of the NLRA should be borrowed and applied to claims brought under section 2, Fourth of the RLA, due to federal labor policy favoring uniformity and speed.