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

• Coriner Whitehead v. ST. JOE Lead Co., Inc.
  729 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1984-02-28 ·cited 6×
  Suppliers of lead may be held liable under New Jersey law for failure to warn employees of industrial users of dangers associated with lead contamination, as genuine issues of material fact exist regarding strict liability and negligence claims.
• The Menominee Tribe OF Indians v. The United States
  726 F.2d 718· Fed. Cir.· 1984-01-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Menominee Tribe's forest management claim is barred by the statute of limitations for pre-termination damages and that the court lacks jurisdiction over post-termination damages related to the 1961 Management Plan, as it was an integral part of the Termina
• Deogracias Ruiz v. Shelby Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  725 F.2d 388· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 6×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that dismissal of a Title VII action for filing a request for counsel one day late was improper, and the case should be remanded for a determination of whether the delay was reasonable under equitable principles.
• Jonez P. Suthoff v. Yazoo Cnty. Indus. Dev. Corp.
  722 F.2d 133· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' action was barred by Mississippi's one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts, as the gravamen of their complaint was abuse of process, and there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding fraudulent concealment that would toll
• Suarez v. Little Havana Activities & Nutrition Ctrs. of Dade Cnty., Inc.
  721 F.2d 338· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 6×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the ninety-day filing period for a Title VII complaint can be equitably tolled under certain circumstances, even if Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not strictly applied.
• Gen. Elec. Co. & Elec. Mut. Liab. Co. v. Remington Shepard
  440 So. 2d 462· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-11-03 ·cited 6×
• Mogley v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
  719 F.2d 289· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 180-day period for filing an EEOC charge begins when the employer makes and communicates the termination decision, not the effective date of termination.
• Herdman v. Erwin J. Smith
  707 F.2d 839· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting portions of an affidavit for the prescription issue and that the award was not excessive.
• Anness v. United Steelworkers OF Am.
  707 F.2d 917· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 6×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the collective bargaining agreement's retroactive provision did not exempt the employer from the ADEA's age 70 retirement limit, and the employer's reliance on an oral agency opinion did not provide immunity.
• Fed. Ins. Co. v. Banco Popular de Puerto RICO
  750 F.2d 1095· 1st Cir.· 1983-04-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that both the banks and the employer (ICMC) were negligent, and liability for embezzled funds could be apportioned between them under Puerto Rico tort law.
• City OF ST. Augustine & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Allen
  424 So. 2d 939· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-01-05 ·cited 6×
  In this workers' compensation appeal, the employer/carrier challenges the chief commissioner's order modifying a deputy commissioner's original award to include a statute of limitations tolling defense based on the claimant's alleged incompetency. The court held that no mistake o
• Moore v. Chester Morris, M.D.
  429 So. 2d 1209· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-01-04 ·cited 6×
  Parents of a minor child injured at birth filed a medical malpractice action against physicians and a hospital. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on statute of limitations grounds, finding the parents had notice of the alleged negligence and injury at the ti
• Morton O. McNUTT v. Airco Indus. Gases Div.
  687 F.2d 539· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 6×
  In a § 301 suit for wrongful discharge where arbitration upheld the discharge, the most appropriate state statute of limitations is the 30-day period for vacating arbitration awards.
• Atkins v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
  685 F.2d 1146· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-31 ·cited 6×
• Hatfield v. Bishop Clarkson Mem'l Hosp.
  679 F.2d 1258· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 6×
• Hood v. NEW Jersey Dep't OF Civil Serv.
  680 F.2d 955· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The dissent argues that the case should be remanded to the district court for further proceedings on both the Title VII and § 1981 claims.
• Parker v. Crown
  677 F.2d 391· 4th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 6×
  The pendency of a putative class action tolls the statute of limitations for members of the class, allowing them to file individual suits after class certification is denied.
• Boag v. Chief OF Police
  669 F.2d 587· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights action was barred by the statute of limitations because his parole in 1977 ended the tolling period for his imprisonment, and the suit was filed more than one year after that cessation.
• Vanco Beverages, Inc. v. Falls City Indus., Inc.
  654 F.2d 1224· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Falls City proved a meeting competition defense as a matter of law under the Robinson-Patman Act.
• Curtis v. United Transp. Union
  648 F.2d 492· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) does not toll the statute of limitations, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) does not create an exception to this rule.
• Delmer E. Woodburn v. Windle Turley
  625 F.2d 589· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the plaintiff's cause of action for legal malpractice did not accrue until the defendant filed a motion to reconsider, which was within the statutory period.
• Shelton v. United States
  615 F.2d 713· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an insurer's claim for reimbursement does not satisfy the Federal Tort Claims Act's "sum certain" requirement for the injured party's claim.
• Newcomer v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
  598 F.2d 968· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-12 ·cited 6×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to provide formal notice of intent to sue to the Secretary of Labor was a jurisdictional bar to his age discrimination suit.
• Tomanio v. The Bd. OF Regents OF the Univ. OF the State OF NEW York
  603 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a chiropractor denied a waiver of licensing requirements without a hearing and statement of reasons is entitled to procedural due process.
• Leone v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  599 F.2d 566· 3d Cir.· 1979-06-08 ·cited 6×
  An insurer's good faith but erroneous accusation of criminal conduct against an insured, without initiating criminal proceedings, does not toll the suit limitation clause in a fire insurance policy.
• Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.
  592 F.2d 1133· 10th Cir.· 1979-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Oklahoma statute of limitations, which requires timely service of process in addition to filing, governs the commencement of a diversity action, even though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 only requires filing.
• MT. Hood Stages, Inc. v. The Greyhound Corp. & Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  583 F.2d 469· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 6×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the case should be remanded to the trial court to determine if the statute of limitations was equitably tolled.
• Lustig v. McCORMICK
  358 So. 2d 844· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-05-02 ·cited 6×
  Plaintiff Lustig appealed a dismissal of his medical malpractice complaint on statute of limitations grounds. The court affirmed, holding that Lustig failed to timely file his lawsuit either within the general two-year statute of limitations or within the 60-day period provided b
• J. M. Dungan for ABC Towing Serv. of Salinas, Inc. v. Morgan Drive-Away, Inc.
  570 F.2d 867· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-13 ·cited 6×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that the empanelling of a grand jury does not suspend the running of the statute of limitations under 15 U.S.C. § 16(i); only the return of an indictment does.
• Eurell v. The United States
  566 F.2d 1146· Ct. Cl.· 1977-12-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for disability retirement pay is barred by the statute of limitations and laches. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's.
• Stefanos Zaoutis v. Kiley
  558 F.2d 1096· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the INS's timely issuance of a notice of intention to rescind an alien's adjustment of status tolls the five-year time limit prescribed by § 246(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
• Fury Imports, Inc. v. Shakespeare Co.
  554 F.2d 1376· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the contract was renewed and that Shakespeare's actions were not justified, but a new trial is required on compensatory damages.
• Bruno v. The United States
  556 F.2d 1104· Ct. Cl.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for disability pay is barred by the statute of limitations because the claim accrued upon his discharge and was not tolled by subsequent administrative reviews or the continuing claim doctrine.
• Mount v. Book-Of-The-Month Club, Inc.
  555 F.2d 1108· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred the first count and most of the second count, but a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether a release signed by the plaintiff barred the remaining claim.
• Galvan v. Hess OIL Virgin Islands Corp.
  549 F.2d 281· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-08 ·cited 6×·via Tolling Provisions
  The infancy tolling provision of 5 V.I.C. § 36 applies to third-party suits under 24 V.I.C. § 263, and the lowering of the age of majority in 16 V.I.C. § 261 does not affect this tolling provision.
• Mr. Carl H. Alley v. Dodge Hotel
  D.D.C.· 1977-02-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that his assertions of equitable estoppel were insufficient as a matter of law.
• Merritt A. (Sonny) Walker, Jr. v. Pac. Basin Trading Co.
  536 F.2d 344· 10th Cir.· 1976-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action based on the statute of limitations, as a comatose condition may constitute a legal disability that tolls the statute.
• Nivens v. Signal OIL & GAS Co., Inc.
  520 F.2d 1019· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's tort claim had prescribed under Louisiana law because he knew or should have known of his injuries and their cause more than one year before filing suit, even if the full extent of the injury was not immediately apparent.
• W. Elec. Co., Inc. v. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc.
  501 F.2d 928· 8th Cir.· 1974-07-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prior decision of a three-judge court precluded the carriers from challenging the validity of the ICC's refund order, and that Section 16(2) of the Interstate Commerce Act, incorporated into Part II, provided a statutory cause of action for shippers to enf
• Camacho v. The United States
  494 F.2d 1363· Ct. Cl.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Claims held that the plaintiffs' petition for just compensation was barred by the statute of limitations, as the claims accrued more than six years before the suit was filed.
• Harrison v. Wright
  457 F.2d 793· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the one-year statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's civil rights action, as imprisonment does not toll the statute under Tennessee law.
• James A. Davis in the Matter of Midwest Livestock Comm'n Co. v. Sec. Nat'l Bank OF Nev.
  447 F.2d 1094· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a trustee to recover a preferential transfer is tolled during the pendency of Chapter X proceedings, and that the trustee should have been permitted to amend their complaint.
• Railing v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  445 F.2d 353· 4th Cir.· 1971-07-13 ·cited 6×
  A cause of action under Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act accrues, for statute of limitations purposes, at the time damages occur and are ascertainable, consistent with the interpretation of the Clayton Act in Zenith Radio Corporation v. Hazeltine, Inc.
• Smith v. Skakel
  444 F.2d 526· 6th Cir.· 1971-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a three-and-a-half-year delay in serving process, even with diligent efforts, was not a reasonable time under Michigan law to toll the statute of limitations.
• Bott v. Am. Hydrocarbon Corp.
  441 F.2d 896· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the California statute of limitations was tolled by the defendant corporation's absence from California, entitling the plaintiff to judgment on the jury's verdict.
• Johnson v. United States
  404 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the letter sent by plaintiffs' attorneys did not constitute a valid administrative claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), and thus the action was time-barred.
• Atkins v. Schmutz Mfg. Co.
  401 F.2d 731· 4th Cir.· 1968-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Virginia statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's action because the prior suit filed in Kentucky did not toll the Virginia statute under Virginia law.
• Corning Glass Works v. Puerto RICO Water Res. Auth., Inc.
  396 F.2d 421· 1st Cir.· 1968-06-05 ·cited 6×
  A third-party plaintiff's right to contribution is not extinguished by the original plaintiff's inability to sue the third-party defendant directly due to the statute of limitations.
• Belton v. Traynor
  381 F.2d 82· 4th Cir.· 1967-06-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for filing a claim under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act is tolled when the employer provides a false report of the employee's average weekly wage, especially when the Deputy Commissioner is aware of and accep
• COY v. United States
  377 F.2d 925· 9th Cir.· 1967-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The statute of limitations for collecting back taxes was tolled by an offer of compromise, but the tolling period ended when the taxpayer was sentenced for fraud related to the offer, making the subsequent collection suit untimely. However, the government may retain the compromis