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

• Enfield v. Held
  357 So. 2d 772· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-04-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while dismissal of the complaint was proper due to failure to allege compliance with medical mediation procedures, the dismissal should have been with leave to amend, not with prejudice.
• Verden J. Pratt v. Durkop
  356 So. 2d 1278· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-03-15 ·cited 8×
  In this wrongful death action, the court held that a civil action is commenced for statute of limitations purposes by the filing of the complaint, not by the issuance and service of summons. Therefore, timely filing of the original complaint tolled the statute of limitations even
• McCarthy v. Kleindienst
  562 F.2d 1269· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the filing of a class action complaint tolls the statute of limitations for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to intervene after the denial of class certification, even if certification was denied on grounds of untimeliness or lack of
• Stroble v. Egeler
  547 F.2d 339· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in its determination regarding the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and ordered a remand for further proceedings.
• Int'l Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am. v. United Ass'n OF Journeymen & Apprentices OF the Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus.
  341 So. 2d 1005· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-12-24 ·cited 8×
  The statute of limitations is not tolled by the fraudulent concealment of the wrongdoer's identity if the plaintiff knew of the cause of action.
• Ferguson v. The Kroger Co.
  545 F.2d 1034· 6th Cir.· 1976-10-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that administrative delay by the EEOC in forwarding a timely complaint to a state agency does not defeat a claimant's right to sue for religious discrimination.
• Peabody Coal Co. v. Train
  518 F.2d 940· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-10 ·cited 8×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the petitioner's failure to file its petition for review within the statutory 90-day period deprives the court of jurisdiction.
• John Morrell & Co. v. Chicago
  495 F.2d 331· 7th Cir.· 1974-03-13 ·cited 8×
  A railroad's letter disallowing a claim, even if qualified or open to negotiation, is sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations for filing suit.
• Strickland v. Watt
  453 F.2d 393· 9th Cir.· 1972-01-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel Arizona to apply California's longer statute of limitations for foreign judgments, and summary judgment was properly granted.
• State v. Garcia
  245 So. 2d 293· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The State of Florida appealed the dismissal of a new murder/manslaughter information filed against Garcia and Triana, arguing the statute of limitations should not bar reprosecution after the trial court granted a new trial. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the volu
• Otto D. Gray v. Swanney-McDONALD, Inc.
  436 F.2d 652· 9th Cir.· 1971-01-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that servicing vehicles on interstate highways constitutes interstate commerce for FLSA purposes, and that towing services absorbed by auto clubs or repair shops are considered 'for resale' under the retail establishment exemption. It also held that the FLSA's stat
• Williams v. The United States
  434 F.2d 1346· Ct. Cl.· 1970-12-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an employee's knowingly false affidavit submitted to obtain reinstatement, even if in response to improper questions, precludes recovery of damages due to the statute on false claims.
• Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.
  424 F.2d 427· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-16 ·cited 8×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that New York courts would likely apply Florida's accrual-at-discovery rule, rather than New York's time-of-sale rule, in this case.
• Graves v. Gen. Ins. Corp.
  412 F.2d 583· 10th Cir.· 1969-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an amendment substituting a new defendant does not relate back to the original filing date under Rule 15(c) if the new defendant is not an identity of interest with the original and had no notice of the suit within the limitations period.
• Juanito Timoni v. United States
  419 F.2d 294· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-13 ·cited 8×
  The three-year statute of limitations for minors suing on National Service Life Insurance claims is tolled during the period the claim is pending before the Veterans' Administration.
• Mathis v. The United States
  394 F.2d 519· Ct. Cl.· 1968-06-14 ·cited 8×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that a trial should be had on the issue of whether the plaintiff, acting pro se, attempted to timely transmit a petition from jail.
• United States v. Harris Tr. & Sav. Bank
  390 F.2d 285· 7th Cir.· 1968-02-07 ·cited 8×·via Suspension Of Statute Of Limitations
  The court held that the taxpayers' agreement to suspend the statute of limitations in an offer in compromise remained effective despite a typewritten modification reserving defenses.
• The State OF NEW Jersey v. Morton Salt Co.
  387 F.2d 94· 3d Cir.· 1967-12-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Clayton Act's tolling provision applies to private antitrust claims even if the defendants were not named in the prior government action, and that tolling continues until the government's action concludes, even if a consent decree was entered against a def
• Peto v. Madison Square Garden Corp.
  384 F.2d 682· 2d Cir.· 1967-10-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's antitrust claim was barred by the statute of limitations because the government's prior suit did not toll the limitations period for this private action.
• United States v. Myerson
  368 F.2d 393· 2d Cir.· 1966-11-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled by the defendant's absence from the United States, the jury's deliberations were not prejudiced by a blackout, and the 'witness sheets' were not discoverable under the Jencks Act.
• Mulholland v. The United States
  361 F.2d 237· Ct. Cl.· 1966-05-13 ·cited 8×
  The Court of Claims held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations because it was filed more than 11 years after accrual, and the statute was not tolled by alleged fraudulent concealment or administrative proceedings. Consequently, the court lac
• Otto v. Burnett
  332 F.2d 529· 6th Cir.· 1964-06-02 ·cited 8×
  The three-year limitation period within the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) is substantive and cannot be extended by state savings statutes, absent specific exceptions like fraud or circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. City OF Burlington
  326 F.2d 691· D.C. Cir.· 1964-01-02 ·cited 8×
  The court would affirm the district court's order if the issue were still open for adjudication.
• Tavernier v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
  309 F.2d 87· 9th Cir.· 1962-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Oregon tolling statute for minority extends the limitations period until the plaintiff reaches age 21, regardless of marriage before that age.
• Lowy v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  288 F.2d 517· 2d Cir.· 1961-04-04 ·cited 8×
  A fraudulent omission of income, even if not directly impacting the tax due due to an overstated deficiency, tolls the statute of limitations, allowing assessment of the omitted income.
• Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corp. v. United States
  285 F.2d 131· Ct. Cl.· 1961-01-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the tolling provision of the new Patent Act does not apply to patents that had already expired before the Act's effective date, even if administrative claims were pending.
• Morales v. Bull S.S. Co.
  279 F.2d 299· 1st Cir.· 1960-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the mere existence of a right to attach property is insufficient to toll a statute of limitations if no attachable property was actually present in the jurisdiction.
• Norman Tobacco & Candy Co., Inc. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co.
  264 F.2d 751· 5th Cir.· 1959-03-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury verdict was supported by the evidence and that there was no error in the jury charge or the statute of limitations ruling.
• Farris v. Sturner
  264 F.2d 537· 10th Cir.· 1959-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's finding that the plaintiff did not acquire a personal interest in the note until after it was in default was unsupported by the record, and that a self-serving letter from the defendant to a third party was improperly admitted into evidence.
• Forest Young v. Hicks
  250 F.2d 80· 8th Cir.· 1957-12-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a Tennessee statute of limitations is not tolled for a defendant if personal service of process could have been obtained in the state, even if the defendant is a non-resident. The court also held that an affidavit concerning a foreign corporation's business ac
• United States v. Willhite
  219 F.2d 343· 4th Cir.· 1955-02-02 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the evidence was insufficient to submit the issue of the insured's death before policy lapse to the jury.
• Standard Oil Co. of Tex. v. Swinney
  201 F.2d 133· 5th Cir.· 1953-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statute of limitations did not bar the compensation carrier's intervention because the employee's original suit tolled the limitations period for the entire cause of action.
• Green v. United States
  188 F.2d 48· D.C. Cir.· 1951-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled by the defendant's absence from the District and that evidence of other bad checks was admissible to prove fraudulent intent.
• Redman v. United Fruit Co.
  185 F.2d 553· 2d Cir.· 1950-12-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the libellant failed to show sufficient excuse for his delay in bringing suit or that the respondent was not prejudiced by the delay.
• Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. Parish et ux.
  168 F.2d 238· 10th Cir.· 1948-05-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of limitations because the defendants' nonresidence did not toll the statute for an in rem action against property within Kansas.
• Pepper v. Truitt
  158 F.2d 246· 10th Cir.· 1946-11-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an equitable right to cancel a deed obtained by undue influence or failure of consideration survives to the grantor's heirs, and that the analogous statute of limitations for such an action is five years.
• Yager v. Liberty Royalties Corp.
  123 F.2d 44· 10th Cir.· 1941-10-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled during the period when one individual controlled both the claimant trust and the debtor corporation, and thus the claim was not barred.
• Alfreida Hogan v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
  121 F.4th 172· 11th Cir.· 2024-11-01 ·cited 7×·via Equitable Tolling
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the 15-day deadline for federal employees to file a formal administrative complaint under Title VII is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and is subject to equitable tolling. However, the court affirmed dismissal because th
• Nuvasive, Inc. v. Absolute Med., LLC
  71 F.4th 861· 11th Cir.· 2023-06-21 ·cited 7×·via Equitable Tolling
  NuVasive sued its exclusive distributor Absolute Medical and related parties for breaching a distribution agreement and noncompetition provisions, with the contract dispute being arbitrated at the district court's direction. After the arbitration panel denied NuVasive's damages c
• Iriele v. Griffin
  65 F.4th 1280· 11th Cir.· 2023-04-17 ·cited 7×·via Equitable Tolling
  An executor cannot represent an estate pro se in federal court if there are additional beneficiaries or outstanding creditors, but the district court must provide an opportunity to cure this defect before dismissal.
• Hutchinson v. State
  343 So. 3d 50· Fla.· 2022-06-16 ·cited 7×·via Equitable Tolling
  Jeffrey Hutchinson, convicted of four murders in 1998 and sentenced to death, appealed the summary denial of his second successive postconviction motion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, finding his claims of newly discovered evidence, Brady violations, and Giglio v
• Foley v. Asima Azam
  257 So. 3d 1134· Fla. 5th DCA· 2018-10-19 ·cited 7×
  Section 1367(d) tolls the statute of limitations for state law claims dismissed from federal court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether the federal claims were frivolous or lacked plausible foundation. The plain text of the statute does not condition tol
• F.T.M.I. Operator, LLC v. Anne Marie Limith
  140 So. 3d 1065· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-06-09 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the employer/carrier failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, thus its petition for writ of certiorari must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Krause v. Textron Fin. Corp.
  59 So. 3d 1085· Fla.· 2011-02-03 ·cited 7×·via Tolling Provisions
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute's tolling provision (28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)) applies when state law claims are dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Court h
• Medpartners/Diagnostic Clinic Med. Grp., P.A. v. Zenith Ins. Co.
  23 So. 3d 202· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-11-30 ·cited 7×
  MedPartners/Diagnostic Clinic Medical Group and Specialty Risk Services appealed an order requiring SRS to pay $615,630.96 in contribution to Zenith Insurance Company for benefits paid on a workers' compensation claim. The court reversed, holding that once the statute of limitati
• John DOE NO. 23 v. Archdiocese OF Miami, Inc.
  965 So. 2d 1186· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-09-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to justify tolling the statute of limitations on an equitable estoppel theory, and thus the dismissal with prejudice was proper.
• Garrett v. Dep't of Corr.
  589 F. Supp. 2d 1289· M.D. Fla.· 2007-06-20 ·cited 7×·via Class Action Tolling
  The court held that the defendant employer could be liable for inmate sexual harassment of an employee, and that the employee's claims were not barred by untimeliness due to piggybacking on prior class action charges.
• Ross v. JIM Adams Ford, Inc.
  871 So. 2d 312· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-05-07 ·cited 7×
  John Ross sued his former employer for disability discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act, alleging he was terminated due to a work-related leg fracture. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim as barred by the four-year statute of limitations, whi
• O'Donnell's Corp. v. Himrod Ambroise
  858 So. 2d 1138· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-11-07 ·cited 7×·via Equitable Tolling
  O'Donnell's Corporation appealed an order remanding its petition for relief from an unlawful employment practice back to an administrative law judge for further proceedings. The Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the remand order was not a final age
• Thompson v. Orange Lake Country Club, Inc.
  224 F. Supp. 2d 1368· M.D. Fla.· 2002-07-23 ·cited 7×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on Title VII claims due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the EEOC, and on defamation claims, but denied it on FCRA claims pending further review of administrative exhaustion.