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

• Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Brookside Theatre Corp.
  194 F.2d 846· 8th Cir.· 1952-02-11 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of evidence from a prior antitrust case and the consideration of lost profits for damages were not prejudicial errors, and that the excessiveness of the verdict was not a matter for appellate review.
• United States v. Carmine Persico
  832 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the jury, not the judge, must make the factual determination of when criminal conduct occurred when it is critical to a double jeopardy defense. The court also held that a RICO conspiracy conviction requires proof that a specific conspiracy to commit a predica
• Suslick v. Rothschild Sec. Corp.
  741 F.2d 1000· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 68×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that while the appellant sufficiently alleged active concealment to toll the statute of limitations for a period, the overall limitations period still expired, barring the claim; however, the award of attorneys' fees was reversed due to a lack of subjective bad fai
• Martinez v. Verne ORR
  738 F.2d 1107· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 68×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the thirty-day limitations period for federal employees to file a Title VII action is not jurisdictional and may be subject to equitable tolling. The EEOC notice was misleading, and equitable considerations allowed the plaintiff's late filing.
• Pearson v. Skydell
  522 F.2d 171· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-31 ·cited 68×
  The court held that a settlement agreement in a consolidated action, where class certification was denied, is enforceable even if the dismissal of a related certiorari petition is argued to breach fiduciary duties to absent class members.
• Pansy O. Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  621 So. 2d 451· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-03-16 ·cited 67×
  Carlton appealed the dismissal of her negligence action against Walmart for failure to serve process within 120 days as required by Florida Rule 1.070(j). The court reversed, holding that Carlton established good cause for the delay because her attorney reasonably believed Walmar
• George Williams, D.D.S. v. Campagnulo
  588 So. 2d 982· Fla.· 1991-10-10 ·cited 67×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that compliance with the pre-filing notice requirement under section 768.57 is a condition precedent to maintaining a dental malpractice action, and that notice must be given within the statute of limitations period. The Court quashed the Fourth Dis
• Fernandez v. Chardon
  681 F.2d 42· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-08 ·cited 67×
  A class action tolls the Puerto Rican statute of limitations during its pendency for all purported class members, and when class certification is denied for lack of numerosity, the limitations period begins to run anew. The Supreme Court's decision in Delaware State College v. Ri
• Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. S.A.P.
  835 So. 2d 1091· Fla.· 2002-11-27 ·cited 66×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel can toll the statute of limitations in negligence actions against the state under section 768.28(13), even though the statute does not expressly mention equitable estoppel. The Court rejected the state's argum
• Murray Rubin v. State
  390 So. 2d 322· Fla.· 1980-07-10 ·cited 66×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the two-year statute of limitations in effect when Rubin's crimes were committed in 1974-1975 applies to determine timeliness of prosecution, not a subsequently enacted three-year statute. The Court affirmed Rubin's convictions because the init
• Morgan v. Koch
  419 F.2d 993· 7th Cir.· 1969-12-04 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of due diligence sufficient to justify submitting the question of the statute of limitations to the jury for both federal and state law claims.
• Nyhus v. Travel Mgmt. Corp.
  466 F.2d 440· D.C. Cir.· 1972-08-11 ·cited 65×
  The court held that an oral agreement to defer stock delivery, supported by consideration, could effectively postpone the statute of limitations, and that illegality was not established as a matter of law.
• Myles Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc.
  825 F.2d 1521· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-31 ·cited 64×
  Notices of appeal filed before the district court's final judgment on prejudgment interest are ineffective. An appeal from a nonfinal order taxing costs is also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Taylor v. Meirick
  712 F.2d 1112· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-07 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is tolled until the plaintiff discovers the infringement, especially when the defendant actively conceals it, and that a plaintiff cannot recover both their lost profits and the infringer's profits for the
• Goldie Satz v. ITT Fin. Corp.
  619 F.2d 738· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the appellant's EEOC charge was timely filed because her complaint alleged a continuing course of discriminatory conduct.
• Page v. U. S. Indus., Inc.
  556 F.2d 346· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-25 ·cited 64×
• Fitzgerald v. Seamans
  553 F.2d 220· D.C. Cir.· 1977-02-23 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred claims against Air Force officials due to lack of timely discovery of facts, but remanded the claim against a White House defendant for further factual development regarding his involvement.
• Aronsen v. Crown Zellerbach
  662 F.2d 584· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 63×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the determination of when an unlawful employment practice occurred is a factual question, not a matter of law, and thus summary judgment was inappropriate. The limitations period begins when the employee knows or should know of the unlawful practice.
• Jimenez v. Weinberger
  523 F.2d 689· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-01 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the class action and that the claims were not barred by limitations, allowing for retroactive relief.
• Justino Lugo Vega v. THE S.S. Malula
  291 F.2d 415· 5th Cir.· 1961-06-16 ·cited 63×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that the equitable doctrine of laches should not bar the libel because the respondent failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice from the delay, especially given the clear unseaworthiness of the vessel.
• Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  187 So. 3d 1219· Fla.· 2016-03-17 ·cited 62×·via Equitable Tolling
  The Florida Supreme Court held that individual members of the decertified Engle tobacco class action may seek punitive damages under theories of negligence and strict liability in their subsequent individual lawsuits, overruling the First District's contrary holding and resolving
• Wood v. John Fraser, M.D.
  677 So. 2d 15· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-06-14 ·cited 62×
  Marie Wood appealed a summary judgment dismissing her medical malpractice action as time-barred by a four-year statute of repose. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in failing to follow its prior precedent in Moore v. Winter Haven Hospital, which established t
• Glidden v. Chromalloy Am. Corp. & Allied Prods. Corp.
  808 F.2d 621· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 62×
  The court held that an appeal from a grant of summary judgment is not properly before the court when a motion for class certification is still pending in the district court, as the case is not yet final.
• Bethel v. Burtell M. Jefferson
  589 F.2d 631· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-09 ·cited 62×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that while District of Columbia police officers must generally use Section 706 of Title VII, requiring EEOC involvement, the confusion surrounding the proper statutory route excuses the appellants' failure to file with the EEOC. The court also found that the allege
• Holly Sugar Corp. v. Distillery, Rectifying, Wine & Allied Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO
  412 F.2d 899· 9th Cir.· 1969-06-09 ·cited 62×
  An arbitrator's award enforcing a collective bargaining agreement, even if it establishes a new job classification, must be upheld if it draws its essence from the agreement and does not manifest infidelity to its obligation, especially when the contract allows arbitrators to act
• Cook v. The Deltona Corp.
  753 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 61×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that Deltona's performance was not rendered impossible by increased regulation, affirming the directed verdict for breach of contract, but remanded for determination of the date Deltona knew development was impossible to calculate damages.
• Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Wag-Aero, Inc.
  741 F.2d 925· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 61×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court stated that the standard of review for a determination of laches, particularly in intellectual property cases, should be 'clearly erroneous,' not 'abuse of discretion.'
• Arneil v. Ramsey
  550 F.2d 774· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-16 ·cited 61×·via Class Action Tolling
  The court held that the Washington three-year statute of limitations applies to the federal securities fraud claims, barring them as untimely, and that Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act does not create a cause of action for investors in member firms.
• Cheryll Gray v. Lacke
  885 F.2d 399· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-22 ·cited 60×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that res judicata does not bar individual-capacity claims against employees, collateral estoppel does not apply to unaddressed constitutional claims, and Wisconsin's six-year personal rights statute of limitations applies to § 1983 actions.
• Galindo v. Stoody Co.
  793 F.2d 1502· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-15 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the union's failure to notify the employer of the employee's steward status was a breach of the duty of fair representation, but the union's handling of the arbitration was not a breach. The statute of limitations did not bar the claims.
• Cooper v. Griffin B. Bell
  628 F.2d 1208· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 60×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the first intra-agency filing period for an employment discrimination charge under Title VII is subject to equitable extension, and a plaintiff may be able to establish estoppel against the government if they relied on false advice from a government official.
• Edwards v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc.
  515 F.2d 1195· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 60×
  An employer's failure to post ADEA notices does not excuse an employee's failure to provide timely notice of intent to sue to the Secretary of Labor, as the 180-day notice period is a mandatory, jurisdictional prerequisite.
• State v. Gazda
  257 So. 2d 242· Fla.· 1971-07-21 ·cited 60×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant's five-year statutory limitation on sentencing after a withheld adjudication is tolled when the defendant wrongfully absents himself from the court's jurisdiction, preventing the trial court from imposing sentence.
• Brown v. State
  674 So. 2d 738· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-09-20 ·cited 59×
  Robert Brown was charged with theft and forgery in 1983, but the state did not execute the arrest warrants while he was incarcerated out of state on unrelated federal charges. When he returned to Florida in 1993 and was arrested, he moved to dismiss based on the statute of limita
• Sochor v. State
  580 So. 2d 595· Fla.· 1991-05-02 ·cited 59×
  Dennis Sochor appeals his convictions for kidnapping and first-degree murder and his death sentence for the disappearance and presumed killing of an 18-year-old female on New Year's Eve 1981. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and the death penalty, finding suffic
• Angrand v. Morry FOX, D.O.
  552 So. 2d 1113· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-09-12 ·cited 59×
  A Florida appellate court reversed two trial court dismissals of a medical malpractice wrongful death complaint, holding that a prematurely filed complaint should be abated rather than dismissed outright, and that two independent ninety-day tolling periods under Florida statutes
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  725 F.2d 211· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, as the statute of limitations did not bar the EEOC's claims and the case presented genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.
• City OF NEW York v. Heckler
  742 F.2d 729· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that it had jurisdiction under § 405(g) and § 1361 to adjudicate the class members' challenge to the SSA's disability determination procedure and to award relief, including interim benefits.
• Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard
  678 F.2d 1211· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 58×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court affirmed the denial of class certification and most judgments, but reversed the judgment as to Pinkard's § 1981 retaliatory discharge claim.
• Waggoner v. Dallaire
  649 F.2d 1362· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-10 ·cited 58×
  The court held that an oral understanding cannot modify the trust provisions of a collective bargaining agreement under federal labor law, and that a union is not an agent of the trust fund for purposes of imputing knowledge. The court also found the contract was not an unenforce
• United States & Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. LEE WAY Motor Freight, Inc.
  625 F.2d 918· 10th Cir.· 1979-09-21 ·cited 58×
  The court concurred with back pay awards for minority claimants but dissented on the calculation of those awards and the scope of remand.
• The Japanese War Notes Claimants Ass'n of the Philippines v. The United States
  373 F.2d 356· Ct. Cl.· 1967-02-17 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred because they accrued more than six years prior to the filing of the petition, and the court lacked jurisdiction.
• The Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  331 F.2d 720· 6th Cir.· 1964-03-31 ·cited 58×
  The dissenting judge would hold that charges based on the December 28, 1960 unfair labor practice are barred by the six-month statute of limitations under Section 10(b) of the Act.
• Osbourne v. United States
  164 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1947-12-05 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to the plaintiff's internment by the enemy, as he was denied access to the courts.
• Holland v. Florida
  11th Cir.· 2010-06-14 ·cited 57×·via Equitable Tolling
  Equitable tolling is available under AEDPA, and attorney misconduct not attributable to the petitioner, such as abandonment, can constitute extraordinary circumstances.
• Debora D. Gordon v. Nat'l Youth Work Alliance
  675 F.2d 356· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 57×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the 90-day filing period for Title VII claims is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling, and thus should be addressed under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1).
• Schaefer v. First Nat'l Bank OF Lincolnwood
  509 F.2d 1287· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-30 ·cited 57×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that Rule 10b-5 claims are not time-barred due to equitable tolling and that remedies under various securities provisions are cumulative. The court also affirmed the dismissal of antitrust claims.
• Rosenberg v. Martin
  478 F.2d 520· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-27 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for prejudicial publicity was barred by issue preclusion from prior proceedings, and his assault claim was time-barred due to the statute of limitations not relating back to the original pleading.
• Siegelman v. Cunard White Star Ltd.
  221 F.2d 189· 2d Cir.· 1955-02-17 ·cited 57×
  A claim agent's statement that it would not be necessary to file suit within the contractually stipulated one-year period constitutes a waiver or estoppel, preventing the defendant from asserting that limitation.
• Jacksonville Am. Publ'g Co. v. Jacksonville Paper Co.
  143 Fla. 835· Fla.· 1940-08-02 ·cited 57×
  Jacksonville Paper Company sued Jacksonville American Publishing Company for an unpaid account balance of $187.75. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on certiorari, holding that a corporation may be bound by its president's promises to pay a debt within the statute o